The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
"The People vs. Democracy"
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the New York Times:

In ‘The People vs. Democracy,’ Trump Is Just One Populist Among Many
Books of The Times

By JENNIFER SZALAI MARCH 14, 2018

The title of Yascha Mounk’s new book, “The People vs. Democracy,” makes clever use of what looks like a glaring oxymoron: After all, what is democracy if not rule by the people? When democracy is under siege, the belligerents are supposed to be dictators, oligarchs and autocrats; the people are supposed to be the guardians (if all goes well), or else the victims (if it doesn’t).

But that’s just the delusions of liberal democracy talking. Mounk, who lectures on political theory at Harvard and builds on the important work of scholars like Jan-Werner Müller and Cas Mudde, shows how populist insurgencies can undermine democracy — in the long run, that is.

At first, populist movements often present themselves as deeply, even radically, democratic. The 2016 Brexit referendum is a case in point. Inviting citizens to vote on such an enormous policy change was a simple enactment of direct democracy. Those who voted for Britain to leave the European Union declared they were wresting autonomy away from the bureaucratic clutches of an unresponsive, Brussels-based elite. A characteristic slogan of the pro-Brexit campaign was “Take Back Control.”

Much of this rhetoric baldly exploited anti-immigrant bigotry — a classic tactic in the populist playbook.

The link in the NYT leads to an article about the UKIP poster featuring a photograph of Merkel’s Marching Million:

For all that populists purport to champion the will of the people, their definition of the people is often restrictive and “deeply illiberal,” Mounk writes, if not downright exclusionary.

For example, populists have the idea that the German Chancellor’s whim should not necessarily determine who gets to be the people of your country. But what could be more illiberal and restrictive than displaying a photograph of the result of the Chancellor’s brainstorm? It’s downright exclusionary to let the current people of a country vote to not let in all the potential millions who might want to move there and vote.

Why should the billions who live in other countries be denied a vote in your country just because they haven’t arrived yet? It’s like the downright exclusionary way that JP Morgan Chase excludes me from receivings dividend on their stock just because I don’t own any — even though I might get some in the future. So where’s my check?

The fundamental problem today is that the anti-populists have become such extremist radicals on immigration policy.

Update: From Yascha Mounk’s website:

He is now a Lecturer on Government at Harvard University, a Senior Fellow in the Political Reform Program at New America, and Executive Director at the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change.

Do you think George W. Bush kicks himself that he let Tony beat him to that name? If he’d just been a little quicker there could be a George W. Bush Institute for Global Change.

 
Hide 230 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. The fundamental problem today is that the anti-populists have become such extremist radicals on immigration policy.

    Don’t be a coward, Steve. That is like using “globalists”. Mounk is driven by the same desire as many other “liberal” diaspora Jews: ethnic interest.

    Fundamentally, he wants to live in a society where he is not the outsider, because that goes against his ethnic interest. In a society where everyone is the outsider is far more preferable to his ethnic interests. At the same time, he wants Israel to remain ethnically Jewish.

    It is true that there are also white liberals who hold these beliefs, but you should always
    look at people in their home country. The amount of open borders liberal Jews in Israel is a tiny fringe, a true reflection of their genuine liberalism. In the diaspora, they don’t identify with the native majority, so their politics will naturally shift in a direction to maximise suppression of native interests.

    White people is the only group which have large amounts of these types of beliefs among the native population when we are in a majority. Looking at other groups – in their own home country – you don’t see this at all. Certainly not among Jews. Diaspora “liberal” Jews would be ardent nationalists in Israel. The mistake white people make is that many assume other peoples are as invested in political principles as they are. Whereas most people are just interested in their own ethnic interests and those will shift depending upon if you’re in the majority or in the minority.

    Read More
    • Agree: AndrewR, Travis
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Fundamentally, he wants to live in a society where he is not the outsider, because that goes against his ethnic interest. In a society where everyone is the outsider is far more preferable to his ethnic interests. At the same time, he wants Israel to remain ethnically Jewish.
     
    Your first two sentences are contradicted by your third. But the contradiction is his.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. I wouldn’t mind so much if our overlords were ruling us incompetently largely without our consent, cutting their own taxes, deregulating financial services which then lead to financial crises, starting adventures in third world countries leading to the countless deaths of third world civilians, loss of life for our own soldiers, and a waste of money, etc. etc.

    IF

    they didn’t wish to swamp our countries with third world immigrants

    AND

    they also weren’t blindly tottering towards nuclear war.

    These are my two requirements of any governments: work to preserve the ethnic composition of my country (if Wakanda is 100% Wakandan, keep it 100% Wakandan; if, however, the country in question is 0% Wakandan and, say, 100% white Swedish, keep it 0% Wakandan and 100% Swedish); and reduce the possibility of a nuclear war to a minimum.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Romanian
    Good positions. What is your take, however, on inherited diversity? Not just the deep stretches of time, but literally diversity that showed up a hundred years ago.
    , @Anonymous

    I wouldn’t mind so much if our overlords were ruling us incompetently largely without our consent, cutting their own taxes, deregulating financial services which then lead to financial crises, starting adventures in third world countries leading to the countless deaths of third world civilians, loss of life for our own soldiers, and a waste of money, etc. etc.
     
    But that's probably part of the reason why the overlords want demographic replacement. People don't respect people who tolerate this kind of abuse and who lack moral integrity. They only have contempt for them. It's like the relationship between an abuser and an abuse victim. The more the abuse victim tolerates his own abuse and is also indifferent to or even aid and abets and participates in the abuse of others, the greater the contempt the abuser has for the abuse victim and the more he wants to just get rid of him entirely.
    , @Flip
    That's why Ann Coulter says immigration is the only issue that matters.
    , @Luke Lea
    Help keep Wakanda Wakandan!
    , @AnotherDad
    Well said Reiner.

    But honestly where we're at now i'd settle for nuclear war. I don't want to lose any of my kids, and i'd like to do another 25 or 30 myself if i can stay healthy, but i'd rather see American cities vaporized then this population replacement. We'd still have farmland, and shoulder to the wheel would rebuild a civilization. But when we're replaced in our territory ... we're toast.

    Nothing could be worse than what's going on with the exception of space aliens landing and using us for slaves or food. And anyone who could get here, could get superior robot labor or assemble proteins with much less time, energy and expense. So that ain't happening.

    Nope, we're facing the worse imaginable--the genocide of the West.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. What percent of kids in Southern California schools have at least one parent who illegally crossed the border from Mexico, if they didn’t themselves?

    What percent of LAUSD is Hispanic now?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Even that contemptuous, snobbish and down right class a prejudiced term ‘populist’ and the way serlkf-styled ‘superior’ people bandy it around these days, makes me sick.

    ‘Populist’ obviously comes from ‘Populus’ meaning ‘people’. ‘Democracy’ comes from the term ‘Demos’ meaning people. Only difference is that one term contract is Latin, the other Greek. Exactly the same descriptive meaning.

    Thus *any* politician of *any* persuasion whatsoever, who, by necessity, in a representative democracy relies upon the plurality of popular votes, freely given, for his political life, is, by definition, a ‘populist’.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. Just goes to show you that modern liberalism is a totalitarian fraud at best and murder-suicide cult at worst.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. I liked the title, “The People v Democracy”, but the views of the author since he is a toady of the Ruling Class are of course 180 degrees from the truth.

    Democracy, at least as practiced in the U.S., has been used by the Ruling Class to further its own globalist ends to the detriment of the people. For example, looking at the last few presidential elections (Obama v Romney, Obama v McCain, Bush v Kerry, Bush v Gore), we’ve seen one open-borders globalist running against another one – the two wings of the Uniparty. Democracy has given the illusion of the expression of popular will, but only within the narrow confines approved by the Ruling Class. Plus the “popular will” is informed by the propaganda arm of the Ruling Class, the mainstream media.

    So, the rot has to have gone pretty deep before there is any reaction from the electorate. Europe is too far gone to save. It remains to be seen whether the same can be said for America

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. The fundamental problem today is that the anti-populists have become such extremist radicals on immigration policy.

    The rise of the internet and immigration flows from literally every corner of the Earth into the West along with laws like asylum and family reunification has simply allowed for the real possibility to kill off the lower classes once and for all. (Not sure the new lower classes are all that less hostile but history is full of examples of people bringing in people they haven’t learned to hate yet to get rid of people they have a deep hatred of and then realising they really shouldn’t have done that.)

    So essentially they have an actual chance to kill off their social inferiors. High house prices, low wages and constant pressure from immigrants leading to lower and lower fertility and longer generation times, even for the very poor. (And incredible demoralisation and learned helplessness) Meanwhile immigrants can be safely seen as tools or objects or pity, they have little impact or agency yet. (Or they are perceived as such)

    For example, in the UK some in the ‘genocide the natives’ camp are getting rather concerned that the poor Muslims who are becoming more a more influential constituency in the British Labour party might have an effect on it’s longstanding anomaly of being very pro-zionist despite the views of members and politicians. When they helped to change the party policy on immigration by replacing working class Brits repulsed or demoralised by such policies that was fine, but now they’re losing control, but they still haven’t learned to hate British-Pakistanis with the white-hot intergenerational hate they reserve for the English working class. The social segregation is so complete that non-whites are still for a lot of older people this thing they see but don’t socially interact with, like a tourist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman

    The rise of the internet and immigration flows from literally every corner of the Earth into the West along with laws like asylum and family reunification has simply allowed for the real possibility to kill off the lower classes once and for all.
     
    It's every bit as deadly for the middle and upper classes as well.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Has Jamie Kirchick suddenly become slightly WOKE on immigration? Apparently it’s now okay not to be “liberal” on immigration: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/democracy-post/wp/2018/03/08/you-can-fight-for-liberal-values-without-being-liberal-on-immigration/

    That’s not what he said about Stephen Miller back in October!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel H
    >> Has Jamie Kirchick suddenly ...

    How can one take a grown man seriously when he goes around calling himself Jamie.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Switching from irony [most of your post] to non-irony [your last paragraph] without any explicit indication is poor writing. It forces the reader to unnecessarily expend mental energy to realize that you have completely changed gears. “But seriously, the fundamental…” at the beginning of your final paragraph would have been much better.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Get yer own blog.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Mounk’s own website makes it plain.

    https://www.yaschamounk.com/about

    He is now a Lecturer on Government at Harvard University, a Senior Fellow in the Political Reform Program at New America, and Executive Director at the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change.</blockquote>

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Thanks.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Mounk is a leftist Jew, but his analysis of the current state of democracy is pretty accurate (and also in-line with many Chinese analysts, incidentally). The guy is clearly intelligent. I suggest people read him just to understand what the ideological battlefield is like.

    His recommendations are uninspired, however. Basically warmed over civic nationalism with bits of colorblind “fight the power” rhetoric mixed in. If he weren’t so limited by western moral norms, he’d realize that liberal democracy is not suffering from a disease, it IS the disease.

    Read More
    • Replies: @rogue-one
    Mounk is also "the executive director of the Renewing the Centre team at the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change."

    Tony Blair did not more damage to the UK than any other man in past 50 years. I am not sure if a sane man can trust Mr Blair's associate.
    , @AnotherDad

    Mounk is a leftist Jew, but his analysis of the current state of democracy is pretty accurate (and also in-line with many Chinese analysts, incidentally). The guy is clearly intelligent. I suggest people read him just to understand what the ideological battlefield is like.
     
    I tend to concur. I'm not sure he's super intelligent. I can't really tell, there isn't any high level insight here.

    But reading his stuff, Mounk comes across as way, way less stupid than the typical Jewish woman screeching about this stuff, or regurgitating 3rd grade leftist platitudes like "race does not exist".

    For all the stupid non-sequiturs, Mounk basically seems to understand that
    -- people like to be part of a community and democracy really (historically) has only worked very well in reasonably coherent "mono-ethnic" nations
    and
    --that populism is a perfectly understandable reaction to tedious elite anti-democratic "expertism" and mismanagement.

    The problem is it's precisely the Western elite's greatest, most disastrous mismanagement--immigration and "multicultralism"--that Mounk really wants to preserve:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/03/opinion/sunday/liberals-reclaim-nationalism.html

    So long as nationalism is associated with one particular ethnic or religious group, it will serve to exclude and disadvantage others. The only way to keep the destructive potential of nationalism in check is to fight for a society in which collective identity transcends ethnic and religious boundaries — one in which citizens from all religious or ethnic backgrounds are treated with the same respect as citizens from the majority group.
     
    I.e. he wants nationalism without, you know, actual nations.

    In other words the same old, same old Jewish demand:
    Every nation should be open and penetrable by Jews. It's just now called "democracy" or "liberalism" or "the modern liberal democratic order".

    There's nothing odd about this. You get a sense of this guy's alienated, screwed up background
    https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/books/how-yascha-mounk-grew-up-a-stranger-in-my-own-country.html
    Mounk never really belonged anywhere. And his own family was too broken\worthless to provide much grounding. So he chafes at all these gentile nations which--used to--function really well and provide national belonging and purpose. He wants them to all be multicultural ... even though he knows it doesn't work!!!

    But this Jewish attitude/prescription is just unnatural and toxic. Most people are not rootless cosmopolitans. The normal human desire is for a politics that provides security, community and prosperity for oneself and even more importantly for your children and descendants. Not for ripping apart your race, culture and nation to create an accommodating globo-dystopia for foreigners.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. One arguably major problem I see is that immigration-restrictionists seldom, if ever, call out the Lügenpresse for accusations of “anti-immigrant sentiment.” To paraphrase other popular quotes (“don’t hate the player;
    hate the game” and “love the sinner; hate the sin”), immigrants aren’t what we should oppose; mass immigration is.

    People serious about immigration restriction are foolish to not call their opponents’ framing out. Accepting, implicitly or otherwise, that you don’t simply oppose immigration but that you also oppose immigrants themselves is a great way to make people think you’re callous if not evil. The best response to the “anti-immigrant” slur would probably be “being anti-mass-immigration* is not the same as being anti-immigrant, and it’s absolutely disgusting of you to imply otherwise. Do you have any shame?”

    *in the specific case of this JYT article, it would obviously be rhetorically better to say “being against letting millions of unvetted young men from around the world into one’s country in a period of months is not the same…” Merkel’s crimes are obviously on a scale much larger than politicians who endorse mass immigration in an orderly, sustainable [in the short to medium term] fashion. But the “anti-immigrant” slur is not just used when discussing Merkel’s crimes, so the quote I wrote above would be a good boilerplate to be modified when appropriate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kylie
    I see what you did there.
    , @Almost Missouri
    So we on the right are not "anti-immigrant", we are "anti-dislocation": not opposed to people having different skin colors and folkways, but opposed to their being uprooted and dropped arbitrarily here and opposed to us having them uninvitedly dropped on us.

    Yes, this looks like it should have broader appeal and implicitly refute the knee-jerk leftist demand that the "Other" always be "helped" (usually by sticking him in an alien country with an EBT card).

    I'll be road testing this neologism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. OT, via Dennis Prager, “the official University of California list of racist “microaggressions”

    https://academicaffairs.ucsc.edu/events/documents/Microaggressions_Examples_Arial_2014_11_12.pdf

    As the psychiatrist said of Basil Fawlty, “there’s enough material here for a whole conference!“.

    Read More
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    On reflection, the whole "microaggressions" saga is a very female way of looking at the world. In my experience women are more likely to say x which actually means y - men are more direct and if they want to say y will say it straight out.

    I occasionally have to remind my wife that "do you know where x is?" doesn't mean "what have you done with x", it just means I want to know where x is. It's not an implied criticism.

    , @Olorin
    Another Monty Python sketch comes to mind.

    Twas Michael Palin as the game show host for "Prejudice, the show that gives you a chance to have a go at Wops, Krauts, Nigs, Eye-Ties, Gippos, Bubbles, Froggies, Chinks, Yids, Jocks, Polacks, Paddies and Dagoes":

    Now the result of last week's competition when we asked you to find a derogatory term for the Belgians. Well, the response was enormous and we took quite a long time sorting out the winners. There were some very clever entries. Mrs Hatred of Leicester said 'let's not call them anything, let's just ignore them'
     
    And since we all need a bit of Carol Cleveland:

    Ending cut off:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knwwgZNeIpA

    Beginning cut off:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19fcN3VaXs4

    Take your pick.

    Mhm.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sstrj15XpWQ
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. @YetAnotherAnon
    OT, via Dennis Prager, "the official University of California list of racist “microaggressions”"

    https://academicaffairs.ucsc.edu/events/documents/Microaggressions_Examples_Arial_2014_11_12.pdf

    As the psychiatrist said of Basil Fawlty, "there's enough material here for a whole conference!".

    On reflection, the whole “microaggressions” saga is a very female way of looking at the world. In my experience women are more likely to say x which actually means y – men are more direct and if they want to say y will say it straight out.

    I occasionally have to remind my wife that “do you know where x is?” doesn’t mean “what have you done with x“, it just means I want to know where x is. It’s not an implied criticism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alec Leamas (hard at work)

    On reflection, the whole “microaggressions” saga is a very female way of looking at the world. In my experience women are more likely to say x which actually means y – men are more direct and if they want to say y will say it straight out.

    I occasionally have to remind my wife that “do you know where x is?” doesn’t mean “what have you done with x“, it just means I want to know where x is. It’s not an implied criticism.

     

    I've thought this as well and wonder whether there are more claims of microaggressions by women than men by volume.

    Women get fixated on meanings between words and nonverbal cues which are all easily misinterpreted. "Did you see how she flicked her hair back when she walked by me" which they then ruminate on for days and so forth. There is definitely more nonverbal communication and shades of meaning that women pick up on than men, however in my experience they're just as likely to wrongly construe or misinterpret these (or posit meaning where none was intended) as they are to correctly interpret them.
    , @Buffalo Joe
    Yetanother, I think I married your wife's sister. Me..."I can't find my camera, it was on the bookshelf in my office. Where did you put it?" Her..."Doesn't belong on the bookshelf and all you had to do was ask."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Read More
    • Replies: @William Badwhite
    I'm not sure what it say or what it holds for the future when one "side" in debates over various issues simply resorts to outright lying, followed by bullying, shaming, name-calling, etc.

    I don't claim to be sufficiently well-read in terms of history to say if something like this has ever happened before. What is the long-term effect of such brazen lying used to control discourse?

    Penn Law Dean Theodore Ruger said Wax spoke “disparagingly and inaccurately” when she claimed last year that she had “rarely, rarely” seen a black student finish in the top half of their class. “It is imperative for me as dean to state that these claims are false,” he said, according to the Daily Pennsylvanian, the student newspaper. “Black students have graduated in the top of the class at Penn Law,”

    Very well. It should be simple enough to produce evidence that Wax spoke “inaccurately”. Just to pick a number, say “rarely, rarely” means 10% or less. Ruger should produce evidence that 10% or more of black students finish in the top half. Further, Wax didn’t claim they never graduated in the “top” of the class, so saying that black students “have graduated in the top” does not counter Wax’s claims.

    "And contrary to any suggestion otherwise, black students at Penn Law are extremely successful, both inside and outside the classroom, in the job market, and in their careers.”

    This should be easy enough to prove. I’d like to see bar exam pass/fail data for the black students relative other races, as well as data on how many of them are still practicing law both 5 and 10 years after graduation. My guess is the pass rates are lower and that fewer blacks are still practicing law at the 5 and 10-year anniversaries. Also I'd guess that of those still practicing law at 5 and 10 year points, a disproportionate number are in diversicrat or public employment roles where their incompetence doesn’t really matter.

    Lastly for Dean Ruger: If these black students do so well despite their affirmative action level LSAT and undergrad grades, that tells us that the admission criteria used by Penn are meaningless. By that I mean if you can be successful at a top-tier law school despite significantly lower LSATs than your peers, then it naturally follows that the LSATs have no predictive power regarding future success in law school. So why do they use them to filter out other races?
    , @AnotherDad
    Amy Wax is a Jew who is on team America, team white, team Western Civ, team civilization ... ergo, she's gotta go!
    , @International Jew
    Sad. That idiot dean doesn't even bother to refute her; all he can say is that some black students have done well, when her comment was about percentages, not about absolutes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. I’m warming up to the conspiracy theory that our overlords are space-alien-lizard-beings intent on sowing discord so that all of humanity is at war with one another, necessitating locking us down and penning us in, to make it easier for them to cull and eat us. Much more believable than the cults of immigration, diversity, and progressivism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    Alarmist, Some times I wish space aliens would land on earth, sort out the chaff and return it to us in maybe three or four years. You know, like the length of an Obama administration.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. So he wrote “Stranger in My Own Country – A Jewish Family in Modern Germany.” Many white people feel that way in parts of Europe and America these days…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    Mounk milks the cow of German guilt in his book with quite some energy (that's pretty German anyway...).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. In other words, democracy is rule by foreigners whose names the members of the demos can’t even pronounce.

    It’s pure evil.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. What exactly is the end game for elites like this?

    Do they truly believe that turning Europe and the United States into some global bazaar is going to be good for them over the long run? Would any them willingly choose to live in Africa? I’m trying to put myself in their shoes to figure out what’s in it for them.

    Yes, I can see how it works for them for a time. All these 3rd worlders will vote for their side and will push down those uppity working-class whites, but it’s not as though it ends there. The 3rd worlders’ numbers will grow and society will get quickly worse.

    At some point, the blacks and browns will want their own elites. At some point, the elites’ gated communities will feel more like prisons than country clubs. At some point, elite or not, they will be the Boer farmer waiting for the next attack.

    Granted, that could take a couple of generations, but elites have children too.

    Read More
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    "At some point, the blacks and browns will want their own elites. At some point, the elites’ gated communities will feel more like prisons than country clubs. At some point, elite or not, they will be the Boer farmer waiting for the next attack."

    How's that working out in Brazil? Looks pretty comfortable for the elite. With all that money you can buy a lot of security.

    That's the future they've got in mind.
    , @Anonymous
    Yes, it just defies all common sense.

    I couldn't get my head around it 40 years ago, and I still can't get my head around it now.

    It's just *madness*. And that's being charitable.
    , @Flip
    I used to think we were headed to Brazil 2.0, but I am starting to think that the Ottoman Empire might be a better template.
    , @Corvinus
    "What exactly is the end game for elites like this?"

    And we have reached critical mass for the false narrative--"elites"--however defined nowadays--have been plotting and scheming to destroy everything wholesome and good. And the general public is too stupid to realize it, because they have been duped wholesale by the media and institutions.

    "Do they truly believe that turning Europe and the United States into some global bazaar is going to be good for them over the long run?"

    IF that was the plan of elites.

    "Yes, I can see how it works for them for a time. All these 3rd worlders will vote for their side and will push down those uppity working-class whites, but it’s not as though it ends there."

    Right, because white elites seek to denigrate their own kind. It's in their DNA. And, of course, they teach their offspring the ways on how to stick it to Whitey and normies. It really makes for great entertainment on their part, right?

    "At some point, the blacks and browns will want their own elites. At some point, the elites’ gated communities will feel more like prisons than country clubs. At some point, elite or not, they will be the Boer farmer waiting for the next attack."

    Just change your name to Chicken Little and be done with it already.
    , @International Jew

    Granted, that could take a couple of generations, but elites have children too.
     
    In Europe, many do not in fact have children.
    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/07/europes-childless-leaders.php
    , @megabar
    To me, this is the strongest argument that most pro-immigrant folks honestly believe the popular narrative that people are genetically interchangeable. I don't believe there are any sinister plots afoot to eliminate whites or Western culture.

    In any discussion I have with pro-immigration folks, they generally will, at some point, argue that America ultimately assimilated the various European peoples, after some unpleasant adjustment period.

    That argument is in fact a good one given the assumption that all races are the same, and is also why mainstream conservatives _do_ generally look illogical. They try to argue that immigration is bad even though the people are, at their core, fully compatible with the West.

    The key to changing opinions on immigration is to implant the seed of doubt about racial interchangeability. This is extraordinarily difficult to do today, firstly as it is in actuality an unpleasant fact to moral people. For example, the idea took hold even in days past, when political correctness was not around. Compounding that, in today's world, the idea is considered the most repugnant fact possible, and there is a lot of machinery in place to offer alternative explanations for the disparity we see in the world.
    , @ben tillman

    What exactly is the end game for elites like this?

    Do they truly believe that turning Europe and the United States into some global bazaar is going to be good for them over the long run?
     
    Yes.

    For a significant part of their history, their EEA was a global bazaar. And they were the ones who set up Brazil in the first place.
    , @backup

    What exactly is the end game for elites like this?
     
    To them immigrants are an abstract concept. The elites have picked up "sixties values" on universities and what not. They have been everything the left hates if you look at this economicaly: A plundering upper class that resembles a locust swarm, requiring the nations that they live to adapt to their wishes or move to another. Just look at the amount of jobs moved to China. Even the old nobility in Europe, for all their faults, did not resemble a locust swarm.

    So how would one reconcile being such an ugly and greedy capitalist (*) with your liberal beliefs? You double down on the non-economical issues: Racism, LGBT issues, trans rights. These elites are rich enough to not live with immigrants so to them it is an abstract issue that fits that list.

    (*) I don't consider capitalism bad, but also not good. It basically is a system - or maybe even the absence of any system at all - that allows for all humans to trade, buy and produce as they please. Hence it exaggerates all cultural traits or lack thereof. The deep issue, I think, is the cultural revolution from the sixties.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Democracy is too important to be left to the people.

    However, the modern Left defines democracy as a xenocracy; rule by and for the benefit of foreigners.

    Read More
    • Agree: ben tillman
    • Replies: @Romanian
    Xenocracy - I like it. It cuts to the heart of the matter.
    , @Corvinus
    Actually, American democracy is too important to be left to the Coalition of the Fringes, aka the Alt Right and SJW's. Both tout their preferred elites, whether it be Race Realists or the Antifa.

    The future of American democracy is left to citizens like Normies and Generation Z.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. “Yascha Mounk is a Lecturer on Political Theory at Harvard University’s Government Department, a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Transatlantic Academy of the German Marshall Fund, and a Nonresident Fellow at [the Soros and Google-funded] New America’s Political Reform Program….Yascha is now working on the crisis of liberal democracy.”

    What “crisis” would that be? Who or what has actually been threatened by resurgent populism? Has prosperity declined? Are we on our way to another Great Recession (like the one caused by the establishment 10 years ago)? The only real threat seems to be the danger that policies enacted will reflect the will of a majority of the voters, rather than the interests of a tiny number of billionaires and their paid stooges (like Yascha Mounk).

    If the people of Great Britain vote for independence from Europe but want a gentle separation (you know, with things like free trade between the UK and the EU still basically in place) that is a threat to “liberal democracy.” The unelected leaders of the EU doing anything and everything they can to keep the unwilling people of the UK inside the EU, up to and including a naval blockade to prevent Britain from exporting anything? That is totally what liberal democracy is about!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yascha_Mounk

    Born in Germany to Polish immigrants, he’s American now. He supports multiculturalism though he doesn’t know if that’s applicable to Israel. (see last paragraph below from Haaretz) He’s being touted as some Ta-Nehisi Coates of polsci presently by tutti quanti. (and he’s not too bright, I follow him on twitter, though not as bad as TNC)

    http://www.dw.com/en/germany-must-take-on-a-multi-ethnic-identity/a-17485385

    Mounk: This has made it more difficult for Germany to take on a truly diverse and multiethnic identity – something that the country needs to do in order to face the future. Because of depopulation, we need more immigration. Unless we want to abolish the social welfare-state, there is no way around that.

    http://www.achgut.com/artikel/war_das_jetzt_nasz_sprech_oder_tagesthemen

    Mounk in German TV: (Google translation)

    “That we are venturing a historically unique experiment, transforming a mono-ethnic and monocultural democracy into a multiethnic one. That can work out, I think that will work, but of course there are also many dislocations. ”

    http://www.nw.de/nachrichten/regionale_politik/22061462_Harvard-Dozent-Yascha-Mounk-So-bekaempfen-wir-den-Zerfall-der-Demokratie.html (Google translation)

    At the same time, Germany has problems developing from a monocultural to a multi-ethnic society. People lose some of their identity. This leads to the irrational fear that strangers could take their land away from them.

    http://www.taz.de/!5373590 (Google translation)

    Especially in Western and Eastern Europe, Australia and parts of Asia, democracy has always been mono-ethnic and monocultural. So it is probably no coincidence that in large parts of Europe – including Germany – democracy really became stable when the country was more homogeneous than ever because of the Second World War. These countries have experienced a lot of immigration in the past 50 or 60 years. They have to slowly change their identity and understand that democracy can also be multi-ethnic – that people from another part of the world can have a different skin color, a different religion than real citizens. This is a historically unique experiment. Unfortunately, we do not know if it can and will work.

    http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-139000005.html (Google translation)

    Above all, it’s about more than a short, friendly summer fairy tale. In Western Europe, there is an experiment that is unique in the history of migration: countries that have defined themselves as monoethnic, monocultural, and monoreligious nations must change their identity. We do not know if it works, we just know it has to work.

    https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vM_-bIbRB7oJ:https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-does-the-scientist-who-foresaw-trump-still-believe-in-democracy-1.5454350+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=de (archive.is/1PmJy)

    [...] Based on this data, Mounk and Foa have been claiming for over two years that the world is facing an epidemic of populism and nationalism – or as some political scientists call it, illiberal democracy: a style of governance whereby the leader may base his authority on a democratic mandate, but the government has scant regard for civil rights and seeks to delegitimize its opponents. [...]

    The key, says Mounk with an ironic smile, is in the slogan often used by populists, also popular among Brexit supporters: to give people a feeling they have a control over their lives and that your own nation has control over its destiny. In order for people to feel that, they have to be convinced that they can live in a multi-ethnic and democratic society and still be better off materially and the liberal camp must learn how to embrace nationalism.

    The idea used to be that we can get away from nationalism and substitute it with other things like social justice, and somehow people will learn to live without it. But when nationalism and democracy clash, nationalism wins. Therefore, we have to try and domesticate nationalism by filling it with our own meaning that makes it compatible with an open and liberal society and harnesses globalization.

    To do that, argues Mounk, liberals who like to think of their values as universal and therefore applicable in the same way to every country, must learn to appreciate national differences. As an example, he cites the country of his birth, Germany, and the country in which he has lived and worked for the last 12 years and where he has recently become a citizen, the United States.

    The U.S., despite Trumps victory, still has a big advantage, he explains. There is a better chance of the majority of Americans embracing a multi-ethnic identity because they already have such a society. But for multi-ethnic democracy to survive in the U.S., some tactical retreat on immigration may be necessary. In Germany, on the other hand, we have polls from 30 years ago showing that two-thirds of Germans think an ethnic Turk who was born and raised in Germany is still a Turk. Recent polls show that two-thirds of Germans still think that.

    The answer for Germany and other European countries is to build a new national narrative, Mounk says. [...]

    [...] Israeli ‘complexity’

    On only his second, short visit to Israel, Mounk admits that he knows very little about the country and that as a political scientist, he prefers not to analyze the Israeli situation with the same tools he employs to analyze other countries. [...]

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosamond Vincy
    Tell all that to women who were assaulted on NYE and at Kristkindls.
    , @Almost Missouri
    Given that Mr. Mounk is German Jewish, he ought to be among the brightest of the bright, but he apparently doesn't see the obvious contradictions in his own theses.

    He admits that democracy has only ever worked in ethnically homogeneous states, but insists we throw caution to the wind and toss out democracy's only proven pillar. Because otherwise the democratic populations might shrink to only 97% of their all-time highs ... or something.

    He claims this is necessary to maintain the social welfare-state, yet social welfare-states have only worked (and none has worked very long) in ethnically homogeneous states. So at each step he is agruing opposite, mutually incompatible things. Which circle he squares by just saying, well, we just have to do it anyway.

    His arguments flagrantly at odds with themselves are bad enough, but he compounds this illogic by endorsing dishonesty. How will this counter-logical project work? By massive lying and bribery!

    "build a new [fake] national narrative"
     

    "domesticate nationalism by filling it with our own meaning"
     

    "get away from nationalism and substitute it with other things like social justice"
     

    "they have to be convinced that they can ... be better off materially"
     
    PS don't try this in Israel, he says, cuz uh, it might not work or something.

    The sad thing is that a lot of people, you know, the demos, have signed up for the Mounk view: that when democracy and the welfare-state clash, democracy must be sacrificed to save the welfare-state. In reality that will destroy both of course, but these people refuse to acknowledge pesky little things like reality.

    I've banged on here before about the poison pill that is the welfare-state. But it just keeps being true. It corrupts everything it touches. Its eldritch energies have escaped the orb and turned voters into pod people: "More soma! More soma!" ... or however that hackneyed metaphor works.
    , @backup
    This is the big issue summarized. We can't go back but the experiment is failing:

    We do not know if it works, we just know it has to work.
     
    , @Mr. Anon

    Above all, it’s about more than a short, friendly summer fairy tale. In Western Europe, there is an experiment that is unique in the history of migration: countries that have defined themselves as monoethnic, monocultural, and monoreligious nations must change their identity. We do not know if it works, we just know it has to work.
     
    And people assured us that Barbara Lerner Spectre was just some kind of anomaly.

    They "must" do this. It "has to work". Why? Who says? It's going to happen so you better get used to it. These people all employ the rhetoric of rapists and thieves.

    By the way, can he really be considered a scholar if he works for a "Political Reform Program"? That sounds like activism to me.
    , @Tyrion 2

    Especially in Western and Eastern Europe, Australia and parts of Asia, democracy has always been mono-ethnic and monocultural. So it is probably no coincidence that in large parts of Europe – including Germany – democracy really became stable when the country was more homogeneous than ever because of the Second World War. These countries have experienced a lot of immigration in the past 50 or 60 years. They have to slowly change their identity and understand that democracy can also be multi-ethnic – that people from another part of the world can have a different skin color, a different religion than real citizens. This is a historically unique experiment. Unfortunately, we do not know if it can and will work.
     
    Surely this is crimethink? Is this bloke saying diversity is not a strength? It is instead a crazy experiment that evidence says directly undermines the stability of democracy? It even, by implication, leads to the Nazis?

    Based on this data, Mounk and Foa have been claiming for over two years that the world is facing an epidemic of populism and nationalism – or as some political scientists call it, illiberal democracy: a style of governance whereby the leader may base his authority on a democratic mandate, but the government has scant regard for civil rights and seeks to delegitimize its opponents.
     
    Delegitmise opponents? Who is banned from speaking? Who is fired from their jobs? Who when elected has the secret services leaking and briefing and even plotting against them? Who gets arrested at airports and gets called racist and deplorable and misogynist and all manner of dehumanizing de-legitimizing terms?

    Is this bloke calling the soi-disant 'liberal establishment' purveyors of illiberal democracy?


    Mounk: This has made it more difficult for Germany to take on a truly diverse and multiethnic identity – something that the country needs to do in order to face the future. Because of depopulation, we need more immigration. Unless we want to abolish the social welfare-state, there is no way around that
     
    He's right when he talks about Germany. Birth rates are disastrous there. Still, importing illiterate peasants from the environs of Raqqah ain't going to save the solvency of the welfare state. The German welfare state won't survive the non-survival of the Germans.

    If this Mounk fellow is popular then things are much less bad than I thought. His ways to save globalism are scraped from the bottom of the barrel. They mostly involve admitting that pretty much all of the Salon-style received opinion is wrong and that by admitting it a new narrative might be constructed. Like 'mass immigration kills your country's stability, depletes your social capital, dilutes your economic capital and is terrible for democracy but .... ???'

    If we are lucky then many people will sign up to promote this stuff and in doing so will let the genie out of the bag

    , @DFH

    Polish immigrants
     
    Please don't impugn Poland's reputation by describing them as 'Polish'
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. “At first, populist movements often present themselves as deeply, even radically, democratic. The 2016 Brexit referendum is a case in point. Inviting citizens to vote on such an enormous policy change was a simple enactment of direct democracy.”

    There is nothing “radically democratic” about a plebiscite. That is the simplest and most basic form of democracy of all. Representative government is the perversion of democracy (though generally a useful one).

    Direct democracy has its problems. It’s hard to account for random, contradictory expressions of the people’s will, and it can be hard at times to even settle on what the people should be voting on. But on major issues that can effect irreversible changes to a nation (such as immigration or accession to a new union, such as the EU) it can be absolutely essential.

    The establishment’s real objection to direct democracy is that it undermines their ability to divide and conquer, and it makes it harder for them to buy off the people in power. There is no way to do an end run around the will of the people by buying out the leaders who are supposed to represent them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    Jolly, There are rumblings in California for a secession referendum. Liberals seceding from "Trump's America" is ok with them. I guess they would petition to rejoin the union if, let's say, Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren was elected POTUS.
    , @ben tillman

    There is nothing “radically democratic” about a plebiscite. That is the simplest and most basic form of democracy of all.
     
    The most basic form of democracy is unanimous consent. Voting is a far-from-ideal concession to the fact that the attainment of unanimous consent is difficult and time-consuming.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. We need a coup in this country ASAP; I used to think that Trump should be in charge of it; I’m starting to think he should be one of those removed.

    Just sayin.

    Read More
    • Agree: donut
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  25. Foreign born Yascha Mounk, who lectures from Harvard at you little people, and builds on the work of foreign-born ivory towerists Jan-Werner Müller and Cas Mudde = “democracy”.

    Citizens voting not to be ruled by foreigners and not to be replaced by invaders = “dangerous insurgent underminers”.

    QED

    /sarc

    This is also known as “Why we can’t have fair things.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist
    I'm enjoying your 'Why we can't have . . .' posts.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “Democracy is now currently defined in Europe as a ‘country run by Jews’” – Ezra Pound

    Democracy is not what it was in 500 BC when news was disseminated through the city primarily through a decentralized network of gossiping housewives. Today, news is passed down through centralized, hierarchical, top-down controlled points: newspapers and television networks. This fundamentally breaks democracy, defeating its purpose and undermining its “democratic” nature.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  27. @theo the kraut
    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yascha_Mounk

    Born in Germany to Polish immigrants, he's American now. He supports multiculturalism though he doesn't know if that's applicable to Israel. (see last paragraph below from Haaretz) He's being touted as some Ta-Nehisi Coates of polsci presently by tutti quanti. (and he's not too bright, I follow him on twitter, though not as bad as TNC)

    http://www.dw.com/en/germany-must-take-on-a-multi-ethnic-identity/a-17485385

    Mounk: This has made it more difficult for Germany to take on a truly diverse and multiethnic identity - something that the country needs to do in order to face the future. Because of depopulation, we need more immigration. Unless we want to abolish the social welfare-state, there is no way around that.

    http://www.achgut.com/artikel/war_das_jetzt_nasz_sprech_oder_tagesthemen

    Mounk in German TV: (Google translation)

    "That we are venturing a historically unique experiment, transforming a mono-ethnic and monocultural democracy into a multiethnic one. That can work out, I think that will work, but of course there are also many dislocations. "

    http://www.nw.de/nachrichten/regionale_politik/22061462_Harvard-Dozent-Yascha-Mounk-So-bekaempfen-wir-den-Zerfall-der-Demokratie.html (Google translation)

    At the same time, Germany has problems developing from a monocultural to a multi-ethnic society. People lose some of their identity. This leads to the irrational fear that strangers could take their land away from them.

    http://www.taz.de/!5373590 (Google translation)

    Especially in Western and Eastern Europe, Australia and parts of Asia, democracy has always been mono-ethnic and monocultural. So it is probably no coincidence that in large parts of Europe - including Germany - democracy really became stable when the country was more homogeneous than ever because of the Second World War. These countries have experienced a lot of immigration in the past 50 or 60 years. They have to slowly change their identity and understand that democracy can also be multi-ethnic - that people from another part of the world can have a different skin color, a different religion than real citizens. This is a historically unique experiment. Unfortunately, we do not know if it can and will work.

    http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-139000005.html (Google translation)

    Above all, it's about more than a short, friendly summer fairy tale. In Western Europe, there is an experiment that is unique in the history of migration: countries that have defined themselves as monoethnic, monocultural, and monoreligious nations must change their identity. We do not know if it works, we just know it has to work.

    https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vM_-bIbRB7oJ:https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-does-the-scientist-who-foresaw-trump-still-believe-in-democracy-1.5454350+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=de (archive.is/1PmJy)

    [...] Based on this data, Mounk and Foa have been claiming for over two years that the world is facing an epidemic of populism and nationalism – or as some political scientists call it, illiberal democracy: a style of governance whereby the leader may base his authority on a democratic mandate, but the government has scant regard for civil rights and seeks to delegitimize its opponents. [...]

    The key, says Mounk with an ironic smile, is in the slogan often used by populists, also popular among Brexit supporters: to give people a feeling they have a control over their lives and that your own nation has control over its destiny. In order for people to feel that, they have to be convinced that they can live in a multi-ethnic and democratic society and still be better off materially and the liberal camp must learn how to embrace nationalism.

    The idea used to be that we can get away from nationalism and substitute it with other things like social justice, and somehow people will learn to live without it. But when nationalism and democracy clash, nationalism wins. Therefore, we have to try and domesticate nationalism by filling it with our own meaning that makes it compatible with an open and liberal society and harnesses globalization.

    To do that, argues Mounk, liberals who like to think of their values as universal and therefore applicable in the same way to every country, must learn to appreciate national differences. As an example, he cites the country of his birth, Germany, and the country in which he has lived and worked for the last 12 years and where he has recently become a citizen, the United States.

    The U.S., despite Trumps victory, still has a big advantage, he explains. There is a better chance of the majority of Americans embracing a multi-ethnic identity because they already have such a society. But for multi-ethnic democracy to survive in the U.S., some tactical retreat on immigration may be necessary. In Germany, on the other hand, we have polls from 30 years ago showing that two-thirds of Germans think an ethnic Turk who was born and raised in Germany is still a Turk. Recent polls show that two-thirds of Germans still think that.

    The answer for Germany and other European countries is to build a new national narrative, Mounk says. [...]

    [...] Israeli 'complexity'

    On only his second, short visit to Israel, Mounk admits that he knows very little about the country and that as a political scientist, he prefers not to analyze the Israeli situation with the same tools he employs to analyze other countries. [...]

    Tell all that to women who were assaulted on NYE and at Kristkindls.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Cas Mudde’s brother Tim was a skinhead, and is the reason Cas Mudde studies right-wing movements. Tim was part of the rightwing Centrum Democraten. In a Dutch newspaper article from 1997 Cas Mudde claims that there is no real base in the Netherlands for a right wing movement. Four years later saw the rise of Pim Fortuyn.

    Article in Dutch, but translates pretty okay:

    https://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/angst-voor-het-spookbeeld~a507163/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  29. OT:

    What a Professor Can’t Say

    Penn says Amy Wax will no longer teach required first-year courses after another widely criticized set of comments about race — this time about black law students at the university — comes to light.

    https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/03/15/penn-says-amy-wax-will-no-longer-teach-required-first-year-law-courses-after-more#disqus_thread

    QUOTE:
    The new controversy involves a video interview by Glenn Loury, professor of economics at Brown University, who has been critical of affirmative action. In the interview, Wax says, “I don’t think I’ve ever seen a black student graduate in the top quarter of the class, and rarely, rarely in the top half.”

    Wax added, “I can think of one or two students who’ve graduated in the top half of my required first-year course,” out of about 90 students per year. She also said that the University of Pennsylvania Law Review has a racial diversity mandate and suggested that some black students shouldn’t go to college.

    Ruger in his letter says that it’s “imperative for me as dean to state that these claims are false: black students have graduated in the top of the class at Penn Law, and the Law Review does not have a diversity mandate. Rather, its editors are selected based on a competitive process.”

    Contrary to any suggestion otherwise, he continued, “black students at Penn Law are extremely successful, both inside and outside the classroom, in the job market and in their careers.”

    Ruger didn’t specify exactly how wrong Wax is, and a university spokesperson did not share specific information on law school performance by racial group. Both Ruger and the spokesperson cited Penn Law’s confidential grading policy, with Ruger asserting that Wax “is not free to transgress the policy that student grades are confidential, or to use her access to those Penn Law students who are required to be in her class to further her scholarly ends without students’ permission.”

    END QUOTE

    For numbers from 1992, see

    TABLE 5.1: DISTRIBUTION OF FIRST-YEAR GPAS AT “ELITE” SCHOOLS, SPRING1992,BY RACE

    http://www.adversity.net/Sander/Systemic_Analysis_FINAL.pdf

    See also TABLE 5.3 for the situation at lower-tier law schools.

    A reasonable estimate from those numbers is that 3.6% of black students at “elite” law schools rank in the top quarter. So maybe there are a few black law students at Penn in the top quarter.

    The consistent outcome across tiers is that about half of black law students rank in the bottom 10%.

    Also extremely interesting is

    Table 1: Predictions of first-year class rank in law school by prospective students at all law schools, BPS, 1991

    http://www.elsblog.org/the_empirical_legal_studi/2006/09/why_doesnt_the_.html#more

    0% of law students predict they’ll rank in the bottom quarter in law school, only 1% predict they’ll be in the next quartile. Hispanics and whites are very similar in their over-optimistic predictions (though almost certainly not in their actual results), but black predictions are even higher than white predictions. Imagine the surprise of black law students when they discover that coming up with snappy comebacks like “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit” is not what the law is all about.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Unladen Swallow
    I remember UCLA law professor Richard Sander pointing out that the median black law student in the US scored in the 7th percentile nationally, this was maybe 10-12 years ago. So at a top law school like Penn that should be about right.
    , @Malcolm X-Lax
    Penn could always release the data and prove she's wrong. But they won't.
    , @scrivener3
    Cant find evidence of it anywhere but when I was at Berkeley Law school I saw an old article about the school going to no number grades.

    First they tried a system of low pass, pass, and honors, being bottom 10% middle 80% and top 10% reasoning employers would be best served by that. Affirmative action students filled the ranks of the low pass and were unemployable.

    They switched to a system of pass, honors, and high honors, being bottom 60% next 30% and top 10%, so no matter how bad you performed you were indistinguishable from someone in the top half of the class.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. O, I now read that Cas Mudde used to be a skinhead himself as well. He sports tattoos of a Dutch Lion and a fist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. Mounk, who lectures on political theory at Harvard …

    Harvard has adjuncts who live out of their car trunks also?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  32. Read More
    • Replies: @eah
    California Appoints Illegal Alien to State Office

    California has its first illegal alien in state office, after Senate President pro Tem Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) appointed Lizbeth Mateo to the California Student Opportunity and Access Program Project Grant Advisory Committee.

    http://media.breitbart.com/media/2018/03/Lizbeth-Mateo-Facebook-640x480.jpg
    , @Lot
    Good find. If she gets the nomination I hope Trump or his superpacs turns this into well targeted web ads.

    Anti-white needs to be mainstreamed. That means at least some of us should hold back on the political incorrectness on social media EXCEPT this phrase, which should be used often.

    She is current one of several co front runners with a 10-18% estimated chances. Bernie is slightly ahead of the pack.

    I hope it is Bernie since he will force Trump to go center left on economic issues, and because he would be the best president of the Dem lot. Harris will just let Trump win on culture war issues.

    , @Anonymous
    And all the money Berkeley has - billions upon billions - they won't do anything for him.

    Just about says it all really.
    , @SunBakedSuburb
    If the post-Trump Republican party returns to market fundamentalists like Paul Ryan, Kamala Harris will be the next president. Like Obama, she's an empty brown vessel waiting to be filled with Wall Street wisdom. We'll get a neocon foreign policy and continued psychological warfare directed against Whites.
    , @Hippopotamusdrome
    F*** the whites. Class war now. LOL
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. @theo the kraut
    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yascha_Mounk

    Born in Germany to Polish immigrants, he's American now. He supports multiculturalism though he doesn't know if that's applicable to Israel. (see last paragraph below from Haaretz) He's being touted as some Ta-Nehisi Coates of polsci presently by tutti quanti. (and he's not too bright, I follow him on twitter, though not as bad as TNC)

    http://www.dw.com/en/germany-must-take-on-a-multi-ethnic-identity/a-17485385

    Mounk: This has made it more difficult for Germany to take on a truly diverse and multiethnic identity - something that the country needs to do in order to face the future. Because of depopulation, we need more immigration. Unless we want to abolish the social welfare-state, there is no way around that.

    http://www.achgut.com/artikel/war_das_jetzt_nasz_sprech_oder_tagesthemen

    Mounk in German TV: (Google translation)

    "That we are venturing a historically unique experiment, transforming a mono-ethnic and monocultural democracy into a multiethnic one. That can work out, I think that will work, but of course there are also many dislocations. "

    http://www.nw.de/nachrichten/regionale_politik/22061462_Harvard-Dozent-Yascha-Mounk-So-bekaempfen-wir-den-Zerfall-der-Demokratie.html (Google translation)

    At the same time, Germany has problems developing from a monocultural to a multi-ethnic society. People lose some of their identity. This leads to the irrational fear that strangers could take their land away from them.

    http://www.taz.de/!5373590 (Google translation)

    Especially in Western and Eastern Europe, Australia and parts of Asia, democracy has always been mono-ethnic and monocultural. So it is probably no coincidence that in large parts of Europe - including Germany - democracy really became stable when the country was more homogeneous than ever because of the Second World War. These countries have experienced a lot of immigration in the past 50 or 60 years. They have to slowly change their identity and understand that democracy can also be multi-ethnic - that people from another part of the world can have a different skin color, a different religion than real citizens. This is a historically unique experiment. Unfortunately, we do not know if it can and will work.

    http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-139000005.html (Google translation)

    Above all, it's about more than a short, friendly summer fairy tale. In Western Europe, there is an experiment that is unique in the history of migration: countries that have defined themselves as monoethnic, monocultural, and monoreligious nations must change their identity. We do not know if it works, we just know it has to work.

    https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vM_-bIbRB7oJ:https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-does-the-scientist-who-foresaw-trump-still-believe-in-democracy-1.5454350+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=de (archive.is/1PmJy)

    [...] Based on this data, Mounk and Foa have been claiming for over two years that the world is facing an epidemic of populism and nationalism – or as some political scientists call it, illiberal democracy: a style of governance whereby the leader may base his authority on a democratic mandate, but the government has scant regard for civil rights and seeks to delegitimize its opponents. [...]

    The key, says Mounk with an ironic smile, is in the slogan often used by populists, also popular among Brexit supporters: to give people a feeling they have a control over their lives and that your own nation has control over its destiny. In order for people to feel that, they have to be convinced that they can live in a multi-ethnic and democratic society and still be better off materially and the liberal camp must learn how to embrace nationalism.

    The idea used to be that we can get away from nationalism and substitute it with other things like social justice, and somehow people will learn to live without it. But when nationalism and democracy clash, nationalism wins. Therefore, we have to try and domesticate nationalism by filling it with our own meaning that makes it compatible with an open and liberal society and harnesses globalization.

    To do that, argues Mounk, liberals who like to think of their values as universal and therefore applicable in the same way to every country, must learn to appreciate national differences. As an example, he cites the country of his birth, Germany, and the country in which he has lived and worked for the last 12 years and where he has recently become a citizen, the United States.

    The U.S., despite Trumps victory, still has a big advantage, he explains. There is a better chance of the majority of Americans embracing a multi-ethnic identity because they already have such a society. But for multi-ethnic democracy to survive in the U.S., some tactical retreat on immigration may be necessary. In Germany, on the other hand, we have polls from 30 years ago showing that two-thirds of Germans think an ethnic Turk who was born and raised in Germany is still a Turk. Recent polls show that two-thirds of Germans still think that.

    The answer for Germany and other European countries is to build a new national narrative, Mounk says. [...]

    [...] Israeli 'complexity'

    On only his second, short visit to Israel, Mounk admits that he knows very little about the country and that as a political scientist, he prefers not to analyze the Israeli situation with the same tools he employs to analyze other countries. [...]

    Given that Mr. Mounk is German Jewish, he ought to be among the brightest of the bright, but he apparently doesn’t see the obvious contradictions in his own theses.

    He admits that democracy has only ever worked in ethnically homogeneous states, but insists we throw caution to the wind and toss out democracy’s only proven pillar. Because otherwise the democratic populations might shrink to only 97% of their all-time highs … or something.

    He claims this is necessary to maintain the social welfare-state, yet social welfare-states have only worked (and none has worked very long) in ethnically homogeneous states. So at each step he is agruing opposite, mutually incompatible things. Which circle he squares by just saying, well, we just have to do it anyway.

    His arguments flagrantly at odds with themselves are bad enough, but he compounds this illogic by endorsing dishonesty. How will this counter-logical project work? By massive lying and bribery!

    “build a new [fake] national narrative”

    “domesticate nationalism by filling it with our own meaning”

    “get away from nationalism and substitute it with other things like social justice”

    “they have to be convinced that they can … be better off materially”

    PS don’t try this in Israel, he says, cuz uh, it might not work or something.

    The sad thing is that a lot of people, you know, the demos, have signed up for the Mounk view: that when democracy and the welfare-state clash, democracy must be sacrificed to save the welfare-state. In reality that will destroy both of course, but these people refuse to acknowledge pesky little things like reality.

    I’ve banged on here before about the poison pill that is the welfare-state. But it just keeps being true. It corrupts everything it touches. Its eldritch energies have escaped the orb and turned voters into pod people: “More soma! More soma!” … or however that hackneyed metaphor works.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Samuel Skinner
    The ancient Greeks were right. Democracy inevitably decays into socialism, then anarchy.
    , @HunInTheSun
    "Given that Mr. Mounk is German Jewish, he ought to be among the brightest of the bright, but he apparently doesn’t see the obvious contradictions in his own theses."

    Mounk is a Polish Jew, like Rosa Luxemburg, which places him amongst the radicals of Jewry, and his views are consistent with the white-hot hatred for Western Christian civilization that characterizes his kind. Mounk's Germanness is an accident of birth and in no way qualifies him to be numbered amongst genuine German Jews, whose ancestors arrived in Germany a thousand years ago and were overwhelmingly loyal to their land up until the recent unpleasantness.

    , @YetAnotherAnon
    "I’ve banged on here before about the poison pill that is the welfare-state. But it just keeps being true. It corrupts everything it touches."

    It works perfectly well for the peoples it was designed for - North West Europeans like Germans, Dutch and Brits. It's when others are invited in and they (as intended) take advantage.

    http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/16079892.Shocking_figures_reveal_how_much_money_hospitals_are_owed_by_overseas_patients/


    A Bradford hospital trust has collected less than a quarter of the money it is owed by overseas patients.

    Figures obtained through a Freedom of Information request have revealed the Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (BTHFT), which includes the Bradford Royal Infirmary and St Luke’s Hospital, has recouped only £195,978 out of £833,064 in the last three years.
     

    One of the few undeleted comments says "I was brought in over 20 years ago to the Leeds hospital and the figures were much higher than these. at that time 50% of the debt was owned by people whose home addresses were (specifically) in Pakistan. Every document from those people taken to hospital was "False", in other words, they received free operations at the expense of the UK NHS!. I cant speak for Bradford, but my guess would be something similar involving people within India and Pakistan. Those in Leeds had relatives in Bradford, Manchester and Leeds that I dealt with and remarkably "me no speeky English" was commonplace!"
    , @Dmitry
    Israel still can't deport a single illegal immigrant, despite the promises of their government - they are hostaged by their liberal judiciary. The High Court has blocked the plan to deport illegal immigrants from Israel today.

    Although they have some strange stories:

    'Can illegal immigrant get legal status by committing rape?'


    Illegal immigrant living in Israel rapes Israeli woman, then demands legal status in Israel as father of child conceived in rape.
     
    https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/243226
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. @theo the kraut
    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yascha_Mounk

    Born in Germany to Polish immigrants, he's American now. He supports multiculturalism though he doesn't know if that's applicable to Israel. (see last paragraph below from Haaretz) He's being touted as some Ta-Nehisi Coates of polsci presently by tutti quanti. (and he's not too bright, I follow him on twitter, though not as bad as TNC)

    http://www.dw.com/en/germany-must-take-on-a-multi-ethnic-identity/a-17485385

    Mounk: This has made it more difficult for Germany to take on a truly diverse and multiethnic identity - something that the country needs to do in order to face the future. Because of depopulation, we need more immigration. Unless we want to abolish the social welfare-state, there is no way around that.

    http://www.achgut.com/artikel/war_das_jetzt_nasz_sprech_oder_tagesthemen

    Mounk in German TV: (Google translation)

    "That we are venturing a historically unique experiment, transforming a mono-ethnic and monocultural democracy into a multiethnic one. That can work out, I think that will work, but of course there are also many dislocations. "

    http://www.nw.de/nachrichten/regionale_politik/22061462_Harvard-Dozent-Yascha-Mounk-So-bekaempfen-wir-den-Zerfall-der-Demokratie.html (Google translation)

    At the same time, Germany has problems developing from a monocultural to a multi-ethnic society. People lose some of their identity. This leads to the irrational fear that strangers could take their land away from them.

    http://www.taz.de/!5373590 (Google translation)

    Especially in Western and Eastern Europe, Australia and parts of Asia, democracy has always been mono-ethnic and monocultural. So it is probably no coincidence that in large parts of Europe - including Germany - democracy really became stable when the country was more homogeneous than ever because of the Second World War. These countries have experienced a lot of immigration in the past 50 or 60 years. They have to slowly change their identity and understand that democracy can also be multi-ethnic - that people from another part of the world can have a different skin color, a different religion than real citizens. This is a historically unique experiment. Unfortunately, we do not know if it can and will work.

    http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-139000005.html (Google translation)

    Above all, it's about more than a short, friendly summer fairy tale. In Western Europe, there is an experiment that is unique in the history of migration: countries that have defined themselves as monoethnic, monocultural, and monoreligious nations must change their identity. We do not know if it works, we just know it has to work.

    https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vM_-bIbRB7oJ:https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-does-the-scientist-who-foresaw-trump-still-believe-in-democracy-1.5454350+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=de (archive.is/1PmJy)

    [...] Based on this data, Mounk and Foa have been claiming for over two years that the world is facing an epidemic of populism and nationalism – or as some political scientists call it, illiberal democracy: a style of governance whereby the leader may base his authority on a democratic mandate, but the government has scant regard for civil rights and seeks to delegitimize its opponents. [...]

    The key, says Mounk with an ironic smile, is in the slogan often used by populists, also popular among Brexit supporters: to give people a feeling they have a control over their lives and that your own nation has control over its destiny. In order for people to feel that, they have to be convinced that they can live in a multi-ethnic and democratic society and still be better off materially and the liberal camp must learn how to embrace nationalism.

    The idea used to be that we can get away from nationalism and substitute it with other things like social justice, and somehow people will learn to live without it. But when nationalism and democracy clash, nationalism wins. Therefore, we have to try and domesticate nationalism by filling it with our own meaning that makes it compatible with an open and liberal society and harnesses globalization.

    To do that, argues Mounk, liberals who like to think of their values as universal and therefore applicable in the same way to every country, must learn to appreciate national differences. As an example, he cites the country of his birth, Germany, and the country in which he has lived and worked for the last 12 years and where he has recently become a citizen, the United States.

    The U.S., despite Trumps victory, still has a big advantage, he explains. There is a better chance of the majority of Americans embracing a multi-ethnic identity because they already have such a society. But for multi-ethnic democracy to survive in the U.S., some tactical retreat on immigration may be necessary. In Germany, on the other hand, we have polls from 30 years ago showing that two-thirds of Germans think an ethnic Turk who was born and raised in Germany is still a Turk. Recent polls show that two-thirds of Germans still think that.

    The answer for Germany and other European countries is to build a new national narrative, Mounk says. [...]

    [...] Israeli 'complexity'

    On only his second, short visit to Israel, Mounk admits that he knows very little about the country and that as a political scientist, he prefers not to analyze the Israeli situation with the same tools he employs to analyze other countries. [...]

    This is the big issue summarized. We can’t go back but the experiment is failing:

    We do not know if it works, we just know it has to work.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. But what could be more illiberal and restrictive than displaying a photograph of the result of the Chancellor’s brainstorm? It’s downright exclusionary to let the current people of a country vote to not let in all the potential millions who might want to move there and vote.

    Just as it is deeply illiberal and exclusionary for Yascha Mounk to not hand over his wallet, watch, and cell phone to a robber, or open his house up as a shelter for the homeless.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  36. Democracy is too important to be left to the voters.

    Read More
    • Agree: The Anti-Gnostic
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  37. @eah
    "The People"

    Ismael Chamu: “F— White People,” “Kill Cops”, “Class War” -- @KamalaHarris: "People like Ismael represent our future"

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DYVP5goXUAAtDv5.jpg

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DYVP6bbX4AINKJp.jpg

    California Appoints Illegal Alien to State Office

    California has its first illegal alien in state office, after Senate President pro Tem Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) appointed Lizbeth Mateo to the California Student Opportunity and Access Program Project Grant Advisory Committee.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. The anti-White globalizers are cornered and dangerous. The anti-White, anti-Christian globalizers who push mass immigration and multiculturalism are afraid of the upcoming retaliation that awaits them when they lose power.

    The monetary extremism of the globalized central banks has convinced me that the evil globalized plutocrats know that there will be no place on earth for them to hide when patriots begin the necessary two to three decades long retaliation process. Without the zero or negative interest rates and the asset purchases and the conjuring up of trillions in currency units, there would have been a global financial implosion in 2008 and every year since.

    For instance, the globalized Federal Reserve Bank conjured up dollars out of thin air to purchase all the toxic mortgage-backed securities that went bust. There was no market for the mortgage-backed securities. The Fed also bailed out American International Group(AIG) so AIG could pay off the counter-party insurance they had sold to Goldman Sachs. The United States would be in a better place financially and culturally if the rancid globalizer shysters at AIG and Goldman Sachs had been financially liquidated.

    DEBT AND DEMOGRAPHY

    MONETARY EXTREMISM and MASS IMMIGRATION

    Tweet from 2015:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  39. @Almost Missouri
    Given that Mr. Mounk is German Jewish, he ought to be among the brightest of the bright, but he apparently doesn't see the obvious contradictions in his own theses.

    He admits that democracy has only ever worked in ethnically homogeneous states, but insists we throw caution to the wind and toss out democracy's only proven pillar. Because otherwise the democratic populations might shrink to only 97% of their all-time highs ... or something.

    He claims this is necessary to maintain the social welfare-state, yet social welfare-states have only worked (and none has worked very long) in ethnically homogeneous states. So at each step he is agruing opposite, mutually incompatible things. Which circle he squares by just saying, well, we just have to do it anyway.

    His arguments flagrantly at odds with themselves are bad enough, but he compounds this illogic by endorsing dishonesty. How will this counter-logical project work? By massive lying and bribery!

    "build a new [fake] national narrative"
     

    "domesticate nationalism by filling it with our own meaning"
     

    "get away from nationalism and substitute it with other things like social justice"
     

    "they have to be convinced that they can ... be better off materially"
     
    PS don't try this in Israel, he says, cuz uh, it might not work or something.

    The sad thing is that a lot of people, you know, the demos, have signed up for the Mounk view: that when democracy and the welfare-state clash, democracy must be sacrificed to save the welfare-state. In reality that will destroy both of course, but these people refuse to acknowledge pesky little things like reality.

    I've banged on here before about the poison pill that is the welfare-state. But it just keeps being true. It corrupts everything it touches. Its eldritch energies have escaped the orb and turned voters into pod people: "More soma! More soma!" ... or however that hackneyed metaphor works.

    The ancient Greeks were right. Democracy inevitably decays into socialism, then anarchy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @theo the kraut
    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yascha_Mounk

    Born in Germany to Polish immigrants, he's American now. He supports multiculturalism though he doesn't know if that's applicable to Israel. (see last paragraph below from Haaretz) He's being touted as some Ta-Nehisi Coates of polsci presently by tutti quanti. (and he's not too bright, I follow him on twitter, though not as bad as TNC)

    http://www.dw.com/en/germany-must-take-on-a-multi-ethnic-identity/a-17485385

    Mounk: This has made it more difficult for Germany to take on a truly diverse and multiethnic identity - something that the country needs to do in order to face the future. Because of depopulation, we need more immigration. Unless we want to abolish the social welfare-state, there is no way around that.

    http://www.achgut.com/artikel/war_das_jetzt_nasz_sprech_oder_tagesthemen

    Mounk in German TV: (Google translation)

    "That we are venturing a historically unique experiment, transforming a mono-ethnic and monocultural democracy into a multiethnic one. That can work out, I think that will work, but of course there are also many dislocations. "

    http://www.nw.de/nachrichten/regionale_politik/22061462_Harvard-Dozent-Yascha-Mounk-So-bekaempfen-wir-den-Zerfall-der-Demokratie.html (Google translation)

    At the same time, Germany has problems developing from a monocultural to a multi-ethnic society. People lose some of their identity. This leads to the irrational fear that strangers could take their land away from them.

    http://www.taz.de/!5373590 (Google translation)

    Especially in Western and Eastern Europe, Australia and parts of Asia, democracy has always been mono-ethnic and monocultural. So it is probably no coincidence that in large parts of Europe - including Germany - democracy really became stable when the country was more homogeneous than ever because of the Second World War. These countries have experienced a lot of immigration in the past 50 or 60 years. They have to slowly change their identity and understand that democracy can also be multi-ethnic - that people from another part of the world can have a different skin color, a different religion than real citizens. This is a historically unique experiment. Unfortunately, we do not know if it can and will work.

    http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-139000005.html (Google translation)

    Above all, it's about more than a short, friendly summer fairy tale. In Western Europe, there is an experiment that is unique in the history of migration: countries that have defined themselves as monoethnic, monocultural, and monoreligious nations must change their identity. We do not know if it works, we just know it has to work.

    https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vM_-bIbRB7oJ:https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-does-the-scientist-who-foresaw-trump-still-believe-in-democracy-1.5454350+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=de (archive.is/1PmJy)

    [...] Based on this data, Mounk and Foa have been claiming for over two years that the world is facing an epidemic of populism and nationalism – or as some political scientists call it, illiberal democracy: a style of governance whereby the leader may base his authority on a democratic mandate, but the government has scant regard for civil rights and seeks to delegitimize its opponents. [...]

    The key, says Mounk with an ironic smile, is in the slogan often used by populists, also popular among Brexit supporters: to give people a feeling they have a control over their lives and that your own nation has control over its destiny. In order for people to feel that, they have to be convinced that they can live in a multi-ethnic and democratic society and still be better off materially and the liberal camp must learn how to embrace nationalism.

    The idea used to be that we can get away from nationalism and substitute it with other things like social justice, and somehow people will learn to live without it. But when nationalism and democracy clash, nationalism wins. Therefore, we have to try and domesticate nationalism by filling it with our own meaning that makes it compatible with an open and liberal society and harnesses globalization.

    To do that, argues Mounk, liberals who like to think of their values as universal and therefore applicable in the same way to every country, must learn to appreciate national differences. As an example, he cites the country of his birth, Germany, and the country in which he has lived and worked for the last 12 years and where he has recently become a citizen, the United States.

    The U.S., despite Trumps victory, still has a big advantage, he explains. There is a better chance of the majority of Americans embracing a multi-ethnic identity because they already have such a society. But for multi-ethnic democracy to survive in the U.S., some tactical retreat on immigration may be necessary. In Germany, on the other hand, we have polls from 30 years ago showing that two-thirds of Germans think an ethnic Turk who was born and raised in Germany is still a Turk. Recent polls show that two-thirds of Germans still think that.

    The answer for Germany and other European countries is to build a new national narrative, Mounk says. [...]

    [...] Israeli 'complexity'

    On only his second, short visit to Israel, Mounk admits that he knows very little about the country and that as a political scientist, he prefers not to analyze the Israeli situation with the same tools he employs to analyze other countries. [...]

    Above all, it’s about more than a short, friendly summer fairy tale. In Western Europe, there is an experiment that is unique in the history of migration: countries that have defined themselves as monoethnic, monocultural, and monoreligious nations must change their identity. We do not know if it works, we just know it has to work.

    And people assured us that Barbara Lerner Spectre was just some kind of anomaly.

    They “must” do this. It “has to work”. Why? Who says? It’s going to happen so you better get used to it. These people all employ the rhetoric of rapists and thieves.

    By the way, can he really be considered a scholar if he works for a “Political Reform Program”? That sounds like activism to me.

    Read More
    • Agree: Bill B.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. “The fundamental problem today is that the anti-populists have become such extremist radicals on immigration policy.”

    No, they’re extremist radicals in their white-hating genocidal racism. Don’t confuse the tool with the project.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  42. For example, populists have the idea that the German Chancellor’s whim should not necessarily determine who gets to be the people of your country.

    Steve is a genius at these kinds of zingers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  43. For progressives, “democracy” just means rolling out the red carpet and then coddling as many historically disadvantaged groups (as they define it) as possible. It’s not about the will of the people as constituted in, say, 1965. Once the demographic transformation is complete, then they can invoke “the will of the people” to show how the majority are happy with what is going on.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  44. I know, instead of the government chemtrails, the government can just fly planes over populations with powerful magnetic sperg rays that will make everyone question religion and love foreigners.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  45. Tweet from 2014:

    In a MASS DEMOCRACY the propagandists in the MASS MEDIA work together with politicians to create TOTALITARIAN conformity.

    First we take back the United States, then we take back England. Or we can do it at the same time, doesn’t matter to me.

    Mass immigration has been weaponized by evil globalizers in order to destroy European Christian nations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @rogue-one
    >Mass immigration has been weaponized by evil globalizers in order to destroy European Christian nations.

    Most fervent supporters of mass migration are priests & churches (at least in France).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Isn’t this just a bit of semantic/semetic Aikido?

    They’re in love with the word “democracy.” It gives them the warm and fuzzies. It represents the expressed will of the people against the Tsar. But what to do when the people’s expressed will doesn’t match your long term program and the new people you’ve ordered haven’t fully come on line as a hegemonic voting block yet? I suppose you have to burn the democracy to save the democracy.

    So we’ll just call unaccountable soft autocratic rule “democracy” if it yields the results we want until the people get their minds right.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  47. Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Request to gold box this brilliant and textbook-ready tweet.
    As I type NPR blithely announces that it is not a "partisan bubble" (apparently the term "echo chamber" is "old and busted").
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. @theo the kraut
    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yascha_Mounk

    Born in Germany to Polish immigrants, he's American now. He supports multiculturalism though he doesn't know if that's applicable to Israel. (see last paragraph below from Haaretz) He's being touted as some Ta-Nehisi Coates of polsci presently by tutti quanti. (and he's not too bright, I follow him on twitter, though not as bad as TNC)

    http://www.dw.com/en/germany-must-take-on-a-multi-ethnic-identity/a-17485385

    Mounk: This has made it more difficult for Germany to take on a truly diverse and multiethnic identity - something that the country needs to do in order to face the future. Because of depopulation, we need more immigration. Unless we want to abolish the social welfare-state, there is no way around that.

    http://www.achgut.com/artikel/war_das_jetzt_nasz_sprech_oder_tagesthemen

    Mounk in German TV: (Google translation)

    "That we are venturing a historically unique experiment, transforming a mono-ethnic and monocultural democracy into a multiethnic one. That can work out, I think that will work, but of course there are also many dislocations. "

    http://www.nw.de/nachrichten/regionale_politik/22061462_Harvard-Dozent-Yascha-Mounk-So-bekaempfen-wir-den-Zerfall-der-Demokratie.html (Google translation)

    At the same time, Germany has problems developing from a monocultural to a multi-ethnic society. People lose some of their identity. This leads to the irrational fear that strangers could take their land away from them.

    http://www.taz.de/!5373590 (Google translation)

    Especially in Western and Eastern Europe, Australia and parts of Asia, democracy has always been mono-ethnic and monocultural. So it is probably no coincidence that in large parts of Europe - including Germany - democracy really became stable when the country was more homogeneous than ever because of the Second World War. These countries have experienced a lot of immigration in the past 50 or 60 years. They have to slowly change their identity and understand that democracy can also be multi-ethnic - that people from another part of the world can have a different skin color, a different religion than real citizens. This is a historically unique experiment. Unfortunately, we do not know if it can and will work.

    http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-139000005.html (Google translation)

    Above all, it's about more than a short, friendly summer fairy tale. In Western Europe, there is an experiment that is unique in the history of migration: countries that have defined themselves as monoethnic, monocultural, and monoreligious nations must change their identity. We do not know if it works, we just know it has to work.

    https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vM_-bIbRB7oJ:https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-does-the-scientist-who-foresaw-trump-still-believe-in-democracy-1.5454350+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=de (archive.is/1PmJy)

    [...] Based on this data, Mounk and Foa have been claiming for over two years that the world is facing an epidemic of populism and nationalism – or as some political scientists call it, illiberal democracy: a style of governance whereby the leader may base his authority on a democratic mandate, but the government has scant regard for civil rights and seeks to delegitimize its opponents. [...]

    The key, says Mounk with an ironic smile, is in the slogan often used by populists, also popular among Brexit supporters: to give people a feeling they have a control over their lives and that your own nation has control over its destiny. In order for people to feel that, they have to be convinced that they can live in a multi-ethnic and democratic society and still be better off materially and the liberal camp must learn how to embrace nationalism.

    The idea used to be that we can get away from nationalism and substitute it with other things like social justice, and somehow people will learn to live without it. But when nationalism and democracy clash, nationalism wins. Therefore, we have to try and domesticate nationalism by filling it with our own meaning that makes it compatible with an open and liberal society and harnesses globalization.

    To do that, argues Mounk, liberals who like to think of their values as universal and therefore applicable in the same way to every country, must learn to appreciate national differences. As an example, he cites the country of his birth, Germany, and the country in which he has lived and worked for the last 12 years and where he has recently become a citizen, the United States.

    The U.S., despite Trumps victory, still has a big advantage, he explains. There is a better chance of the majority of Americans embracing a multi-ethnic identity because they already have such a society. But for multi-ethnic democracy to survive in the U.S., some tactical retreat on immigration may be necessary. In Germany, on the other hand, we have polls from 30 years ago showing that two-thirds of Germans think an ethnic Turk who was born and raised in Germany is still a Turk. Recent polls show that two-thirds of Germans still think that.

    The answer for Germany and other European countries is to build a new national narrative, Mounk says. [...]

    [...] Israeli 'complexity'

    On only his second, short visit to Israel, Mounk admits that he knows very little about the country and that as a political scientist, he prefers not to analyze the Israeli situation with the same tools he employs to analyze other countries. [...]

    Especially in Western and Eastern Europe, Australia and parts of Asia, democracy has always been mono-ethnic and monocultural. So it is probably no coincidence that in large parts of Europe – including Germany – democracy really became stable when the country was more homogeneous than ever because of the Second World War. These countries have experienced a lot of immigration in the past 50 or 60 years. They have to slowly change their identity and understand that democracy can also be multi-ethnic – that people from another part of the world can have a different skin color, a different religion than real citizens. This is a historically unique experiment. Unfortunately, we do not know if it can and will work.

    Surely this is crimethink? Is this bloke saying diversity is not a strength? It is instead a crazy experiment that evidence says directly undermines the stability of democracy? It even, by implication, leads to the Nazis?

    Based on this data, Mounk and Foa have been claiming for over two years that the world is facing an epidemic of populism and nationalism – or as some political scientists call it, illiberal democracy: a style of governance whereby the leader may base his authority on a democratic mandate, but the government has scant regard for civil rights and seeks to delegitimize its opponents.

    Delegitmise opponents? Who is banned from speaking? Who is fired from their jobs? Who when elected has the secret services leaking and briefing and even plotting against them? Who gets arrested at airports and gets called racist and deplorable and misogynist and all manner of dehumanizing de-legitimizing terms?

    Is this bloke calling the soi-disant ‘liberal establishment’ purveyors of illiberal democracy?

    Mounk: This has made it more difficult for Germany to take on a truly diverse and multiethnic identity – something that the country needs to do in order to face the future. Because of depopulation, we need more immigration. Unless we want to abolish the social welfare-state, there is no way around that

    He’s right when he talks about Germany. Birth rates are disastrous there. Still, importing illiterate peasants from the environs of Raqqah ain’t going to save the solvency of the welfare state. The German welfare state won’t survive the non-survival of the Germans.

    If this Mounk fellow is popular then things are much less bad than I thought. His ways to save globalism are scraped from the bottom of the barrel. They mostly involve admitting that pretty much all of the Salon-style received opinion is wrong and that by admitting it a new narrative might be constructed. Like ‘mass immigration kills your country’s stability, depletes your social capital, dilutes your economic capital and is terrible for democracy but …. ???’

    If we are lucky then many people will sign up to promote this stuff and in doing so will let the genie out of the bag

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    Having his article at the New York Times, I regret this comment above.

    Yascha Mounk is actually a full-blown civic nationalist who merely feints punches against 'the right' in order to disguise what he is really writing/persuading against.

    His ideal 'inclusive nationalist' society:

    It is a state in which all members have the same rights and opportunities irrespective of the group into which they are born or the culture to which they belong. It is a society in which people feel that they have something important in common because they seek to govern themselves together, pledge to help one another in an hour of need and recognize that these shared commitments are ultimately more consequential than any difference of color or creed. And it is a culture that does not shy away from celebrating the nobility of this collective identity — embracing the nation’s flag not because we claim never to have failed our compatriots in the past but because we aspire to realize a common future fair to all

    His method seems to be to say to 'liberals' that although "you guys hate water, you should really try some H20, it is totally different, I promise, and absolutely nothing at all like that stuff the people you hate drink. Don't worry, you have staked all your self-esteem and reputation on water being terrible and it definitely is, just drink this H20 instead."

    , @Lot
    Nothing wrong with delayed and low fertility absent mass dysgenic immigration. Now I prefer a happy growing 2.5-3.5 1950s USA/2010s Israel, but Japan's model works pretty well too.
    , @Anonymous
    I'm tired of reading that egregious falsehood - and tired of rebutting it.

    When we discuss immigration and the viability of the welfare state, only one metric matters, namely Schaeffer's Number, (see iSteve passim). Everything else you might read is pure bullshit.

    I'm sure Schaeffer's Number applies just as much in Germany as the USA.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @Almost Missouri
    Given that Mr. Mounk is German Jewish, he ought to be among the brightest of the bright, but he apparently doesn't see the obvious contradictions in his own theses.

    He admits that democracy has only ever worked in ethnically homogeneous states, but insists we throw caution to the wind and toss out democracy's only proven pillar. Because otherwise the democratic populations might shrink to only 97% of their all-time highs ... or something.

    He claims this is necessary to maintain the social welfare-state, yet social welfare-states have only worked (and none has worked very long) in ethnically homogeneous states. So at each step he is agruing opposite, mutually incompatible things. Which circle he squares by just saying, well, we just have to do it anyway.

    His arguments flagrantly at odds with themselves are bad enough, but he compounds this illogic by endorsing dishonesty. How will this counter-logical project work? By massive lying and bribery!

    "build a new [fake] national narrative"
     

    "domesticate nationalism by filling it with our own meaning"
     

    "get away from nationalism and substitute it with other things like social justice"
     

    "they have to be convinced that they can ... be better off materially"
     
    PS don't try this in Israel, he says, cuz uh, it might not work or something.

    The sad thing is that a lot of people, you know, the demos, have signed up for the Mounk view: that when democracy and the welfare-state clash, democracy must be sacrificed to save the welfare-state. In reality that will destroy both of course, but these people refuse to acknowledge pesky little things like reality.

    I've banged on here before about the poison pill that is the welfare-state. But it just keeps being true. It corrupts everything it touches. Its eldritch energies have escaped the orb and turned voters into pod people: "More soma! More soma!" ... or however that hackneyed metaphor works.

    “Given that Mr. Mounk is German Jewish, he ought to be among the brightest of the bright, but he apparently doesn’t see the obvious contradictions in his own theses.”

    Mounk is a Polish Jew, like Rosa Luxemburg, which places him amongst the radicals of Jewry, and his views are consistent with the white-hot hatred for Western Christian civilization that characterizes his kind. Mounk’s Germanness is an accident of birth and in no way qualifies him to be numbered amongst genuine German Jews, whose ancestors arrived in Germany a thousand years ago and were overwhelmingly loyal to their land up until the recent unpleasantness.

    Read More
    • Replies: @GTRY
    "...whose ancestors arrived in Germany a thousand years ago and were overwhelmingly loyal to their land up until the recent unpleasantness."

    LOL. The trope that never gets old.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. @Tyrion 2

    Especially in Western and Eastern Europe, Australia and parts of Asia, democracy has always been mono-ethnic and monocultural. So it is probably no coincidence that in large parts of Europe – including Germany – democracy really became stable when the country was more homogeneous than ever because of the Second World War. These countries have experienced a lot of immigration in the past 50 or 60 years. They have to slowly change their identity and understand that democracy can also be multi-ethnic – that people from another part of the world can have a different skin color, a different religion than real citizens. This is a historically unique experiment. Unfortunately, we do not know if it can and will work.
     
    Surely this is crimethink? Is this bloke saying diversity is not a strength? It is instead a crazy experiment that evidence says directly undermines the stability of democracy? It even, by implication, leads to the Nazis?

    Based on this data, Mounk and Foa have been claiming for over two years that the world is facing an epidemic of populism and nationalism – or as some political scientists call it, illiberal democracy: a style of governance whereby the leader may base his authority on a democratic mandate, but the government has scant regard for civil rights and seeks to delegitimize its opponents.
     
    Delegitmise opponents? Who is banned from speaking? Who is fired from their jobs? Who when elected has the secret services leaking and briefing and even plotting against them? Who gets arrested at airports and gets called racist and deplorable and misogynist and all manner of dehumanizing de-legitimizing terms?

    Is this bloke calling the soi-disant 'liberal establishment' purveyors of illiberal democracy?


    Mounk: This has made it more difficult for Germany to take on a truly diverse and multiethnic identity – something that the country needs to do in order to face the future. Because of depopulation, we need more immigration. Unless we want to abolish the social welfare-state, there is no way around that
     
    He's right when he talks about Germany. Birth rates are disastrous there. Still, importing illiterate peasants from the environs of Raqqah ain't going to save the solvency of the welfare state. The German welfare state won't survive the non-survival of the Germans.

    If this Mounk fellow is popular then things are much less bad than I thought. His ways to save globalism are scraped from the bottom of the barrel. They mostly involve admitting that pretty much all of the Salon-style received opinion is wrong and that by admitting it a new narrative might be constructed. Like 'mass immigration kills your country's stability, depletes your social capital, dilutes your economic capital and is terrible for democracy but .... ???'

    If we are lucky then many people will sign up to promote this stuff and in doing so will let the genie out of the bag

    Having his article at the New York Times, I regret this comment above.

    Yascha Mounk is actually a full-blown civic nationalist who merely feints punches against ‘the right’ in order to disguise what he is really writing/persuading against.

    His ideal ‘inclusive nationalist’ society:

    It is a state in which all members have the same rights and opportunities irrespective of the group into which they are born or the culture to which they belong. It is a society in which people feel that they have something important in common because they seek to govern themselves together, pledge to help one another in an hour of need and recognize that these shared commitments are ultimately more consequential than any difference of color or creed. And it is a culture that does not shy away from celebrating the nobility of this collective identity — embracing the nation’s flag not because we claim never to have failed our compatriots in the past but because we aspire to realize a common future fair to all

    His method seems to be to say to ‘liberals’ that although “you guys hate water, you should really try some H20, it is totally different, I promise, and absolutely nothing at all like that stuff the people you hate drink. Don’t worry, you have staked all your self-esteem and reputation on water being terrible and it definitely is, just drink this H20 instead.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @theo the kraut
    I'm afraid you're getting him wrong (lest you're being sarcastic)--to him ‘inclusive nationalism’ is open borders, multicultural and multiethnic, he's making this very clear in many articles. He's not trying to fool liberals but all others instead, redefining nationalism lest the dreaded 'populists' win with their non-inclusive version. He's a multiculturalist stooge afraid that the peasants might revolt prematurely and abort the billionaire donor's revolution at the last moment. Trump's win and the populist rise in Europe has made them nervous. [insert nasty rant including pitch forks and hand grenades]
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. To understand, or rather overstand, and let rush beneath you the torrent of vain words, consider that behind the words is a conviction, a world-picture, and the words a mess of ink not intended to convince, or even to hang together coherently. The incoherence is the snare by which minds are lured by good faith desiring to repair.

    Work on your own world-picture, love it, build it, a massive cathedral with its own pleasing coherence, and you’ll never pay these chattering apes heed again.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  52. @theo the kraut
    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yascha_Mounk

    Born in Germany to Polish immigrants, he's American now. He supports multiculturalism though he doesn't know if that's applicable to Israel. (see last paragraph below from Haaretz) He's being touted as some Ta-Nehisi Coates of polsci presently by tutti quanti. (and he's not too bright, I follow him on twitter, though not as bad as TNC)

    http://www.dw.com/en/germany-must-take-on-a-multi-ethnic-identity/a-17485385

    Mounk: This has made it more difficult for Germany to take on a truly diverse and multiethnic identity - something that the country needs to do in order to face the future. Because of depopulation, we need more immigration. Unless we want to abolish the social welfare-state, there is no way around that.

    http://www.achgut.com/artikel/war_das_jetzt_nasz_sprech_oder_tagesthemen

    Mounk in German TV: (Google translation)

    "That we are venturing a historically unique experiment, transforming a mono-ethnic and monocultural democracy into a multiethnic one. That can work out, I think that will work, but of course there are also many dislocations. "

    http://www.nw.de/nachrichten/regionale_politik/22061462_Harvard-Dozent-Yascha-Mounk-So-bekaempfen-wir-den-Zerfall-der-Demokratie.html (Google translation)

    At the same time, Germany has problems developing from a monocultural to a multi-ethnic society. People lose some of their identity. This leads to the irrational fear that strangers could take their land away from them.

    http://www.taz.de/!5373590 (Google translation)

    Especially in Western and Eastern Europe, Australia and parts of Asia, democracy has always been mono-ethnic and monocultural. So it is probably no coincidence that in large parts of Europe - including Germany - democracy really became stable when the country was more homogeneous than ever because of the Second World War. These countries have experienced a lot of immigration in the past 50 or 60 years. They have to slowly change their identity and understand that democracy can also be multi-ethnic - that people from another part of the world can have a different skin color, a different religion than real citizens. This is a historically unique experiment. Unfortunately, we do not know if it can and will work.

    http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-139000005.html (Google translation)

    Above all, it's about more than a short, friendly summer fairy tale. In Western Europe, there is an experiment that is unique in the history of migration: countries that have defined themselves as monoethnic, monocultural, and monoreligious nations must change their identity. We do not know if it works, we just know it has to work.

    https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vM_-bIbRB7oJ:https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-does-the-scientist-who-foresaw-trump-still-believe-in-democracy-1.5454350+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=de (archive.is/1PmJy)

    [...] Based on this data, Mounk and Foa have been claiming for over two years that the world is facing an epidemic of populism and nationalism – or as some political scientists call it, illiberal democracy: a style of governance whereby the leader may base his authority on a democratic mandate, but the government has scant regard for civil rights and seeks to delegitimize its opponents. [...]

    The key, says Mounk with an ironic smile, is in the slogan often used by populists, also popular among Brexit supporters: to give people a feeling they have a control over their lives and that your own nation has control over its destiny. In order for people to feel that, they have to be convinced that they can live in a multi-ethnic and democratic society and still be better off materially and the liberal camp must learn how to embrace nationalism.

    The idea used to be that we can get away from nationalism and substitute it with other things like social justice, and somehow people will learn to live without it. But when nationalism and democracy clash, nationalism wins. Therefore, we have to try and domesticate nationalism by filling it with our own meaning that makes it compatible with an open and liberal society and harnesses globalization.

    To do that, argues Mounk, liberals who like to think of their values as universal and therefore applicable in the same way to every country, must learn to appreciate national differences. As an example, he cites the country of his birth, Germany, and the country in which he has lived and worked for the last 12 years and where he has recently become a citizen, the United States.

    The U.S., despite Trumps victory, still has a big advantage, he explains. There is a better chance of the majority of Americans embracing a multi-ethnic identity because they already have such a society. But for multi-ethnic democracy to survive in the U.S., some tactical retreat on immigration may be necessary. In Germany, on the other hand, we have polls from 30 years ago showing that two-thirds of Germans think an ethnic Turk who was born and raised in Germany is still a Turk. Recent polls show that two-thirds of Germans still think that.

    The answer for Germany and other European countries is to build a new national narrative, Mounk says. [...]

    [...] Israeli 'complexity'

    On only his second, short visit to Israel, Mounk admits that he knows very little about the country and that as a political scientist, he prefers not to analyze the Israeli situation with the same tools he employs to analyze other countries. [...]

    Polish immigrants

    Please don’t impugn Poland’s reputation by describing them as ‘Polish’

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Israel has never been more popular in the USA! Sorry SJW/BDS losers, your extensive anti-Israel efforts have been futile at anything than making yourself unemployable in many sectors.

    http://www.thetower.org/6048-gallup-americans-are-as-strongly-pro-israel-as-anytime-in-past-three-decades

    Read More
    • Replies: @Malcolm X-Lax
    Sublimated ethnonationalism. Openly supporting israel is the only safe "white" ethnonationalism allowed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. It’s almost like jews want to be hated. Good jews need to be more outspoken in denouncing this sort of crap.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  55. @reiner Tor
    I wouldn't mind so much if our overlords were ruling us incompetently largely without our consent, cutting their own taxes, deregulating financial services which then lead to financial crises, starting adventures in third world countries leading to the countless deaths of third world civilians, loss of life for our own soldiers, and a waste of money, etc. etc.

    IF

    they didn't wish to swamp our countries with third world immigrants

    AND

    they also weren't blindly tottering towards nuclear war.

    These are my two requirements of any governments: work to preserve the ethnic composition of my country (if Wakanda is 100% Wakandan, keep it 100% Wakandan; if, however, the country in question is 0% Wakandan and, say, 100% white Swedish, keep it 0% Wakandan and 100% Swedish); and reduce the possibility of a nuclear war to a minimum.

    Good positions. What is your take, however, on inherited diversity? Not just the deep stretches of time, but literally diversity that showed up a hundred years ago.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. @Tyrion 2

    Especially in Western and Eastern Europe, Australia and parts of Asia, democracy has always been mono-ethnic and monocultural. So it is probably no coincidence that in large parts of Europe – including Germany – democracy really became stable when the country was more homogeneous than ever because of the Second World War. These countries have experienced a lot of immigration in the past 50 or 60 years. They have to slowly change their identity and understand that democracy can also be multi-ethnic – that people from another part of the world can have a different skin color, a different religion than real citizens. This is a historically unique experiment. Unfortunately, we do not know if it can and will work.
     
    Surely this is crimethink? Is this bloke saying diversity is not a strength? It is instead a crazy experiment that evidence says directly undermines the stability of democracy? It even, by implication, leads to the Nazis?

    Based on this data, Mounk and Foa have been claiming for over two years that the world is facing an epidemic of populism and nationalism – or as some political scientists call it, illiberal democracy: a style of governance whereby the leader may base his authority on a democratic mandate, but the government has scant regard for civil rights and seeks to delegitimize its opponents.
     
    Delegitmise opponents? Who is banned from speaking? Who is fired from their jobs? Who when elected has the secret services leaking and briefing and even plotting against them? Who gets arrested at airports and gets called racist and deplorable and misogynist and all manner of dehumanizing de-legitimizing terms?

    Is this bloke calling the soi-disant 'liberal establishment' purveyors of illiberal democracy?


    Mounk: This has made it more difficult for Germany to take on a truly diverse and multiethnic identity – something that the country needs to do in order to face the future. Because of depopulation, we need more immigration. Unless we want to abolish the social welfare-state, there is no way around that
     
    He's right when he talks about Germany. Birth rates are disastrous there. Still, importing illiterate peasants from the environs of Raqqah ain't going to save the solvency of the welfare state. The German welfare state won't survive the non-survival of the Germans.

    If this Mounk fellow is popular then things are much less bad than I thought. His ways to save globalism are scraped from the bottom of the barrel. They mostly involve admitting that pretty much all of the Salon-style received opinion is wrong and that by admitting it a new narrative might be constructed. Like 'mass immigration kills your country's stability, depletes your social capital, dilutes your economic capital and is terrible for democracy but .... ???'

    If we are lucky then many people will sign up to promote this stuff and in doing so will let the genie out of the bag

    Nothing wrong with delayed and low fertility absent mass dysgenic immigration. Now I prefer a happy growing 2.5-3.5 1950s USA/2010s Israel, but Japan’s model works pretty well too.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    Japan is going to need to do something about each generation being half the size of the preceding one at some point.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    What exactly is the end game for elites like this?

    Do they truly believe that turning Europe and the United States into some global bazaar is going to be good for them over the long run? Would any them willingly choose to live in Africa? I'm trying to put myself in their shoes to figure out what's in it for them.

    Yes, I can see how it works for them for a time. All these 3rd worlders will vote for their side and will push down those uppity working-class whites, but it's not as though it ends there. The 3rd worlders' numbers will grow and society will get quickly worse.

    At some point, the blacks and browns will want their own elites. At some point, the elites' gated communities will feel more like prisons than country clubs. At some point, elite or not, they will be the Boer farmer waiting for the next attack.

    Granted, that could take a couple of generations, but elites have children too.

    “At some point, the blacks and browns will want their own elites. At some point, the elites’ gated communities will feel more like prisons than country clubs. At some point, elite or not, they will be the Boer farmer waiting for the next attack.”

    How’s that working out in Brazil? Looks pretty comfortable for the elite. With all that money you can buy a lot of security.

    That’s the future they’ve got in mind.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Nico
    Catholic social integralism historically made Brazil a mulatto society and racial dynamics do not work even remotely closely in Brazil to the way South Africa's ever have. Although, with the ongoing collapse of Catholicism in Latin America plus American global influence and obviously lower birthrates on the whiter end of Brazil's mulatto spectrum I would not be surprised if racial lines begin to sharpen there eventually as well, with similarly detrimental effects on the white population and indeed civilization overall.
    , @Fredrik
    No, not really. The European elites wants America. They want to have the same fun diverse atmosphere you guys have. We can all see that's delusional but that's not how typical Europeans see it. After all, if you're sold a convincing story by the US media then many people will believe it...
    , @Alfa158
    Same thing in Mexico and many other parts of Latin America, but it’s a nervous sort of comfort. Houses are compounds with glass on top of blank walls, private neighborhood security patrols because you can’t trust the police, bodyguards for all family members, and places in Brazil where no one comes to a complete stop at red lights after dark. In the case of those countries I don’t think the elite like living that way, but that is how it ended up so they cope as well as possible. Our elites think that somehow it won’t end up that way here because they’ll do a better job of ruling the same human raw material. I think they’re going to be proven wrong.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @Lot
    Israel has never been more popular in the USA! Sorry SJW/BDS losers, your extensive anti-Israel efforts have been futile at anything than making yourself unemployable in many sectors.

    http://www.thetower.org/6048-gallup-americans-are-as-strongly-pro-israel-as-anytime-in-past-three-decades

    Sublimated ethnonationalism. Openly supporting israel is the only safe “white” ethnonationalism allowed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    That's true for Tommy Robinson (who literally works directly for Jews and begged off criticism of Israel in a twitter conversation by telling his conversation partner "they're cutting my checks"). But Robinson lives in England, where there is no freedom of speech, and the police will not protect you from leftist and Islamist violence. After all the money spent by AIPAC and all the threats launched by the ADL/SPLC, polite discussion is a numbers game, and Americans coming to this issue without British tyranny will not be able to avoid the consistent Israeli role in energetically pushing monumentally disasterous policies using the language of hatred and extermination. It is generous and religiously apt for the Israelites to provide us with an identity of exterminationists no matter what our actual opinions are (and after all our support), but an increasing number of Americans are seeing that you can disapprove of tribalist hypocrites (sovereignty for Israel but not anybody else) while embracing Israelis like Netanyahu and befriending Israel.
    , @Lot
    You got it. Of course individual euro ethnicities can be proud. Irish and Italian most visibly, but plenty of German and Polish cultural events and clubs in the midwest.

    I figure if you are too mixed to join any of them, just go by last name if possible. Or mother's maiden. I went to German christmas events thrown by the local clubs and bands as a kid, fun times, sing O Tannenbaum.

    But for really old line Americans, who correctly see themselves as new Israelites, it is great to support the originals.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @tanabear
    Democracy is too important to be left to the people.

    However, the modern Left defines democracy as a xenocracy; rule by and for the benefit of foreigners.

    Xenocracy – I like it. It cuts to the heart of the matter.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. @eah
    "The People"

    Ismael Chamu: “F— White People,” “Kill Cops”, “Class War” -- @KamalaHarris: "People like Ismael represent our future"

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DYVP5goXUAAtDv5.jpg

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DYVP6bbX4AINKJp.jpg

    Good find. If she gets the nomination I hope Trump or his superpacs turns this into well targeted web ads.

    Anti-white needs to be mainstreamed. That means at least some of us should hold back on the political incorrectness on social media EXCEPT this phrase, which should be used often.

    She is current one of several co front runners with a 10-18% estimated chances. Bernie is slightly ahead of the pack.

    I hope it is Bernie since he will force Trump to go center left on economic issues, and because he would be the best president of the Dem lot. Harris will just let Trump win on culture war issues.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Whiskey
    Good God. It's looking like a Blue Tidal Wave making Nancy Palsi Speaker and Chucky Schemer Majority Leader. Trump is likely removed three or four months after that on a party line vote.

    Mouncks stuff is popular. That's the center. Wanting your own White nation state is the weirdo position for fringes ... White men, married White women. Trump riled up White women in a pussy hat fury plus non Whites and Harris might even be appointed by a Judge on the basis of "I say so" I would not bet on John Roberts stopping that.

    Only White dudes get screwed by mass third world immigration hence no stopping it for sixty years
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @reiner Tor
    I wouldn't mind so much if our overlords were ruling us incompetently largely without our consent, cutting their own taxes, deregulating financial services which then lead to financial crises, starting adventures in third world countries leading to the countless deaths of third world civilians, loss of life for our own soldiers, and a waste of money, etc. etc.

    IF

    they didn't wish to swamp our countries with third world immigrants

    AND

    they also weren't blindly tottering towards nuclear war.

    These are my two requirements of any governments: work to preserve the ethnic composition of my country (if Wakanda is 100% Wakandan, keep it 100% Wakandan; if, however, the country in question is 0% Wakandan and, say, 100% white Swedish, keep it 0% Wakandan and 100% Swedish); and reduce the possibility of a nuclear war to a minimum.

    I wouldn’t mind so much if our overlords were ruling us incompetently largely without our consent, cutting their own taxes, deregulating financial services which then lead to financial crises, starting adventures in third world countries leading to the countless deaths of third world civilians, loss of life for our own soldiers, and a waste of money, etc. etc.

    But that’s probably part of the reason why the overlords want demographic replacement. People don’t respect people who tolerate this kind of abuse and who lack moral integrity. They only have contempt for them. It’s like the relationship between an abuser and an abuse victim. The more the abuse victim tolerates his own abuse and is also indifferent to or even aid and abets and participates in the abuse of others, the greater the contempt the abuser has for the abuse victim and the more he wants to just get rid of him entirely.

    Read More
    • Agree: Lars Porsena
    • Replies: @bomag

    But that’s probably part of the reason why the overlords want demographic replacement. People don’t respect people who tolerate this kind of abuse and who lack moral integrity.
     
    The new people are even worse in this respect; the overlords will quickly toss them aside for machines and AI.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. So, true democracy is Super-Populism. Let ALL THE PEOPLE swamp your nation.

    Elitism of alien elite uses foreign masses to weaken the will of the native masses.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  63. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    What exactly is the end game for elites like this?

    Do they truly believe that turning Europe and the United States into some global bazaar is going to be good for them over the long run? Would any them willingly choose to live in Africa? I'm trying to put myself in their shoes to figure out what's in it for them.

    Yes, I can see how it works for them for a time. All these 3rd worlders will vote for their side and will push down those uppity working-class whites, but it's not as though it ends there. The 3rd worlders' numbers will grow and society will get quickly worse.

    At some point, the blacks and browns will want their own elites. At some point, the elites' gated communities will feel more like prisons than country clubs. At some point, elite or not, they will be the Boer farmer waiting for the next attack.

    Granted, that could take a couple of generations, but elites have children too.

    Yes, it just defies all common sense.

    I couldn’t get my head around it 40 years ago, and I still can’t get my head around it now.

    It’s just *madness*. And that’s being charitable.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    What exactly is the end game for elites like this?

    Do they truly believe that turning Europe and the United States into some global bazaar is going to be good for them over the long run? Would any them willingly choose to live in Africa? I'm trying to put myself in their shoes to figure out what's in it for them.

    Yes, I can see how it works for them for a time. All these 3rd worlders will vote for their side and will push down those uppity working-class whites, but it's not as though it ends there. The 3rd worlders' numbers will grow and society will get quickly worse.

    At some point, the blacks and browns will want their own elites. At some point, the elites' gated communities will feel more like prisons than country clubs. At some point, elite or not, they will be the Boer farmer waiting for the next attack.

    Granted, that could take a couple of generations, but elites have children too.

    I used to think we were headed to Brazil 2.0, but I am starting to think that the Ottoman Empire might be a better template.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Big Bill

    I am starting to think that the Ottoman Empire might be a better template.
     
    The Ottoman Empire is the Israeli template--the millet system. Everyone carries their own national ID identifying their racial/ethnic/religious/national group. Every group has its own corresponding family law and religious court system. Every group has its own schools. And "Israeli" is not a "nationality". By Israeli law there is no "Israeli" nationality. There is Israeli citizenship, but no Israeli nationality.

    Perhaps this is what Mr. Monck wants for America. An Arab Klal, a Jewish Klal, a Black Klal, a Catholic Klal, a Protestant Klal. Perhaps with alternating Presidencies to maintain social ordera la Lebanon: one term a Muslim President, the next term a Christian President, then a Jewish President, then a black President.

    As Lebanon demonstrates, this arrangement only postpones the inevitable. Sooner or later, either due to immigration, refugees or fast breeding, one of the groups vastly increases its numbers and the whole rickety scaffolding of the balanced multi-ethnic social order collapses.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. @eah
    "The People"

    Ismael Chamu: “F— White People,” “Kill Cops”, “Class War” -- @KamalaHarris: "People like Ismael represent our future"

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DYVP5goXUAAtDv5.jpg

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DYVP6bbX4AINKJp.jpg

    And all the money Berkeley has – billions upon billions – they won’t do anything for him.

    Just about says it all really.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Tyrion 2

    Especially in Western and Eastern Europe, Australia and parts of Asia, democracy has always been mono-ethnic and monocultural. So it is probably no coincidence that in large parts of Europe – including Germany – democracy really became stable when the country was more homogeneous than ever because of the Second World War. These countries have experienced a lot of immigration in the past 50 or 60 years. They have to slowly change their identity and understand that democracy can also be multi-ethnic – that people from another part of the world can have a different skin color, a different religion than real citizens. This is a historically unique experiment. Unfortunately, we do not know if it can and will work.
     
    Surely this is crimethink? Is this bloke saying diversity is not a strength? It is instead a crazy experiment that evidence says directly undermines the stability of democracy? It even, by implication, leads to the Nazis?

    Based on this data, Mounk and Foa have been claiming for over two years that the world is facing an epidemic of populism and nationalism – or as some political scientists call it, illiberal democracy: a style of governance whereby the leader may base his authority on a democratic mandate, but the government has scant regard for civil rights and seeks to delegitimize its opponents.
     
    Delegitmise opponents? Who is banned from speaking? Who is fired from their jobs? Who when elected has the secret services leaking and briefing and even plotting against them? Who gets arrested at airports and gets called racist and deplorable and misogynist and all manner of dehumanizing de-legitimizing terms?

    Is this bloke calling the soi-disant 'liberal establishment' purveyors of illiberal democracy?


    Mounk: This has made it more difficult for Germany to take on a truly diverse and multiethnic identity – something that the country needs to do in order to face the future. Because of depopulation, we need more immigration. Unless we want to abolish the social welfare-state, there is no way around that
     
    He's right when he talks about Germany. Birth rates are disastrous there. Still, importing illiterate peasants from the environs of Raqqah ain't going to save the solvency of the welfare state. The German welfare state won't survive the non-survival of the Germans.

    If this Mounk fellow is popular then things are much less bad than I thought. His ways to save globalism are scraped from the bottom of the barrel. They mostly involve admitting that pretty much all of the Salon-style received opinion is wrong and that by admitting it a new narrative might be constructed. Like 'mass immigration kills your country's stability, depletes your social capital, dilutes your economic capital and is terrible for democracy but .... ???'

    If we are lucky then many people will sign up to promote this stuff and in doing so will let the genie out of the bag

    I’m tired of reading that egregious falsehood – and tired of rebutting it.

    When we discuss immigration and the viability of the welfare state, only one metric matters, namely Schaeffer’s Number, (see iSteve passim). Everything else you might read is pure bullshit.

    I’m sure Schaeffer’s Number applies just as much in Germany as the USA.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    As I literally wrote 'The German welfare state won’t survive the non-survival of the Germans.'

    Good concept though.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. OT

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  68. What we are fighting for is the very soul of America

    Are we a country of white supremacy, Christian supremacy, and hate

    or

    Are we a country of diversity, tolerance, and love

    I am an optimist and trust that the emerging majority of People of Color, women, and other good folks will triumpo

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  69. @YetAnotherAnon
    On reflection, the whole "microaggressions" saga is a very female way of looking at the world. In my experience women are more likely to say x which actually means y - men are more direct and if they want to say y will say it straight out.

    I occasionally have to remind my wife that "do you know where x is?" doesn't mean "what have you done with x", it just means I want to know where x is. It's not an implied criticism.

    On reflection, the whole “microaggressions” saga is a very female way of looking at the world. In my experience women are more likely to say x which actually means y – men are more direct and if they want to say y will say it straight out.

    I occasionally have to remind my wife that “do you know where x is?” doesn’t mean “what have you done with x“, it just means I want to know where x is. It’s not an implied criticism.

    I’ve thought this as well and wonder whether there are more claims of microaggressions by women than men by volume.

    Women get fixated on meanings between words and nonverbal cues which are all easily misinterpreted. “Did you see how she flicked her hair back when she walked by me” which they then ruminate on for days and so forth. There is definitely more nonverbal communication and shades of meaning that women pick up on than men, however in my experience they’re just as likely to wrongly construe or misinterpret these (or posit meaning where none was intended) as they are to correctly interpret them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @AndrewR
    One arguably major problem I see is that immigration-restrictionists seldom, if ever, call out the Lügenpresse for accusations of "anti-immigrant sentiment." To paraphrase other popular quotes ("don't hate the player;
    hate the game" and "love the sinner; hate the sin"), immigrants aren't what we should oppose; mass immigration is.

    People serious about immigration restriction are foolish to not call their opponents' framing out. Accepting, implicitly or otherwise, that you don't simply oppose immigration but that you also oppose immigrants themselves is a great way to make people think you're callous if not evil. The best response to the "anti-immigrant" slur would probably be "being anti-mass-immigration* is not the same as being anti-immigrant, and it's absolutely disgusting of you to imply otherwise. Do you have any shame?"

    *in the specific case of this JYT article, it would obviously be rhetorically better to say "being against letting millions of unvetted young men from around the world into one's country in a period of months is not the same..." Merkel's crimes are obviously on a scale much larger than politicians who endorse mass immigration in an orderly, sustainable [in the short to medium term] fashion. But the "anti-immigrant" slur is not just used when discussing Merkel's crimes, so the quote I wrote above would be a good boilerplate to be modified when appropriate.

    I see what you did there.

    Read More
    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @Calvin X Hobbes
    OT:

    What a Professor Can't Say

    Penn says Amy Wax will no longer teach required first-year courses after another widely criticized set of comments about race -- this time about black law students at the university -- comes to light.

    https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/03/15/penn-says-amy-wax-will-no-longer-teach-required-first-year-law-courses-after-more#disqus_thread

    QUOTE:
    The new controversy involves a video interview by Glenn Loury, professor of economics at Brown University, who has been critical of affirmative action. In the interview, Wax says, “I don’t think I’ve ever seen a black student graduate in the top quarter of the class, and rarely, rarely in the top half.”

    Wax added, “I can think of one or two students who've graduated in the top half of my required first-year course,” out of about 90 students per year. She also said that the University of Pennsylvania Law Review has a racial diversity mandate and suggested that some black students shouldn't go to college.
    ...
    Ruger in his letter says that it’s “imperative for me as dean to state that these claims are false: black students have graduated in the top of the class at Penn Law, and the Law Review does not have a diversity mandate. Rather, its editors are selected based on a competitive process.”

    Contrary to any suggestion otherwise, he continued, “black students at Penn Law are extremely successful, both inside and outside the classroom, in the job market and in their careers.”

    Ruger didn’t specify exactly how wrong Wax is, and a university spokesperson did not share specific information on law school performance by racial group. Both Ruger and the spokesperson cited Penn Law’s confidential grading policy, with Ruger asserting that Wax “is not free to transgress the policy that student grades are confidential, or to use her access to those Penn Law students who are required to be in her class to further her scholarly ends without students’ permission.”

    END QUOTE

    For numbers from 1992, see

    TABLE 5.1: DISTRIBUTION OF FIRST-YEAR GPAS AT “ELITE” SCHOOLS, SPRING1992,BY RACE

    http://www.adversity.net/Sander/Systemic_Analysis_FINAL.pdf

    See also TABLE 5.3 for the situation at lower-tier law schools.

    A reasonable estimate from those numbers is that 3.6% of black students at "elite" law schools rank in the top quarter. So maybe there are a few black law students at Penn in the top quarter.

    The consistent outcome across tiers is that about half of black law students rank in the bottom 10%.

    Also extremely interesting is

    Table 1: Predictions of first-year class rank in law school by prospective students at all law schools, BPS, 1991

    http://www.elsblog.org/the_empirical_legal_studi/2006/09/why_doesnt_the_.html#more

    0% of law students predict they'll rank in the bottom quarter in law school, only 1% predict they'll be in the next quartile. Hispanics and whites are very similar in their over-optimistic predictions (though almost certainly not in their actual results), but black predictions are even higher than white predictions. Imagine the surprise of black law students when they discover that coming up with snappy comebacks like "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit" is not what the law is all about.

    I remember UCLA law professor Richard Sander pointing out that the median black law student in the US scored in the 7th percentile nationally, this was maybe 10-12 years ago. So at a top law school like Penn that should be about right.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. OT: Was just listening to Nigel Farage on the Dennis Prager radio show. Farage is pretty reliable to not call out the kosher quality of the Globalalist elite. And I understand why this must be avoided. For example, you won’t be invited onto the Dennis Prager show. But after the interview Prager, to add insult to injury, asks his audience hypothetically what nationalist cause the globalist left has supports. I immediately thought Wakakanda or Israel. Nope, Palestine. Because of course.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  73. @Almost Missouri
    Given that Mr. Mounk is German Jewish, he ought to be among the brightest of the bright, but he apparently doesn't see the obvious contradictions in his own theses.

    He admits that democracy has only ever worked in ethnically homogeneous states, but insists we throw caution to the wind and toss out democracy's only proven pillar. Because otherwise the democratic populations might shrink to only 97% of their all-time highs ... or something.

    He claims this is necessary to maintain the social welfare-state, yet social welfare-states have only worked (and none has worked very long) in ethnically homogeneous states. So at each step he is agruing opposite, mutually incompatible things. Which circle he squares by just saying, well, we just have to do it anyway.

    His arguments flagrantly at odds with themselves are bad enough, but he compounds this illogic by endorsing dishonesty. How will this counter-logical project work? By massive lying and bribery!

    "build a new [fake] national narrative"
     

    "domesticate nationalism by filling it with our own meaning"
     

    "get away from nationalism and substitute it with other things like social justice"
     

    "they have to be convinced that they can ... be better off materially"
     
    PS don't try this in Israel, he says, cuz uh, it might not work or something.

    The sad thing is that a lot of people, you know, the demos, have signed up for the Mounk view: that when democracy and the welfare-state clash, democracy must be sacrificed to save the welfare-state. In reality that will destroy both of course, but these people refuse to acknowledge pesky little things like reality.

    I've banged on here before about the poison pill that is the welfare-state. But it just keeps being true. It corrupts everything it touches. Its eldritch energies have escaped the orb and turned voters into pod people: "More soma! More soma!" ... or however that hackneyed metaphor works.

    “I’ve banged on here before about the poison pill that is the welfare-state. But it just keeps being true. It corrupts everything it touches.”

    It works perfectly well for the peoples it was designed for – North West Europeans like Germans, Dutch and Brits. It’s when others are invited in and they (as intended) take advantage.

    http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/16079892.Shocking_figures_reveal_how_much_money_hospitals_are_owed_by_overseas_patients/

    A Bradford hospital trust has collected less than a quarter of the money it is owed by overseas patients.

    Figures obtained through a Freedom of Information request have revealed the Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (BTHFT), which includes the Bradford Royal Infirmary and St Luke’s Hospital, has recouped only £195,978 out of £833,064 in the last three years.

    One of the few undeleted comments says “I was brought in over 20 years ago to the Leeds hospital and the figures were much higher than these. at that time 50% of the debt was owned by people whose home addresses were (specifically) in Pakistan. Every document from those people taken to hospital was “False”, in other words, they received free operations at the expense of the UK NHS!. I cant speak for Bradford, but my guess would be something similar involving people within India and Pakistan. Those in Leeds had relatives in Bradford, Manchester and Leeds that I dealt with and remarkably “me no speeky English” was commonplace!”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. OT:

    Paul Krugman, in dissing Trump, dissed William Shatner. The Shat shot back:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  75. Nigel Farage had the guts and brains to use the immigration issue to point out that the United Kingdom had lost its ability to control its borders. Farage pointed out that the European Union had control of the United Kingdom’s sovereign right to control who can enter and stay in the UK. Farage might have left out that the ruling class of England had used the EU as a front to cover their own intentions to destroy English sovereignty by flooding England with foreigners.

    There is no doubt that immigration was the issue that motivated the English to vote to leave the EU. There is no doubt that immigration was the issue that saw Trump win the GOP presidential primaries and then the presidential election.

    The evil ruling classes of the United States and England will have to be flushed out and then destroyed.

    Remember, the Normans at the Battle of Hastings had to flush the Saxons out of their protective shield wall before they could slaughter them. The Normans used a series of cavalry charges and feints to lure the Saxons out, and then they mopped those Saxon bastards up.

    Farage used the immigration issue as a cavalry charge to flush out the pro-EU forces, and then he let the voters butcher those English ruling class rats who wanted the EU to continue to give their evil deeds cover.

    Bourchier means butcher, doesn’t it? Plenty of Normans were regular people until the day they wiped those Saxons the hell out. Are those Normans still on their land in England? I bet they are.

    The answer to 1984 is 1066

    Wipe The Globalizers Out.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  76. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    One funny thing about Woody Allen movies is that even as he rails against Nazis, Nazis… his sexual preferences are totally ‘Nazi’ and ‘Aryan’. He likes the Nordics and Anglos, though for some reason, he settled for Catcher-Mitt-face. Same with Tiger Woods. He was celebrated for his blackness and race-mixed-ness, but he only went after Nordic women.

    ‘They’ killed an Anglo girl.

    And now this:

    https://www.amren.com/news/2018/03/obsessed-classmate-who-was-arrested-after-fleeing-to-nicaragua-after-killing-new-york-nursing-student/

    A brownie, surely an ideological ‘anti-nazi’, got obsessed with an ‘Aryan’ type.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  77. One of the Anons:

    Clock Boy in the news, but don’t wait for MSM coverage or Obama comments.

    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/03/clock-boy-family-loses-racism-lawsuit-against-city-school-and-police/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  78. @Lot
    Nothing wrong with delayed and low fertility absent mass dysgenic immigration. Now I prefer a happy growing 2.5-3.5 1950s USA/2010s Israel, but Japan's model works pretty well too.

    Japan is going to need to do something about each generation being half the size of the preceding one at some point.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome
    Japanese subway people packers face a perilous future of unemployment.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Is it surprising that the people who own the media, Jew or Gentile, would be fans of “democracy?” I too would be a fan of democracy if I owned the national paper of record, or if I were a prominent columnist in that paper. After all, aren’t I the one with the megaphone and you without?

    Now, take my megaphone away, or give everyone their own megaphone of equal size, and suddenly I’m ambivalent about democracy.

    Do not be surprised when journalists praise democracy or the “free press.” (Meaning controlled by a half dozen Jewish Billionaires.) It is not because they love you and they want you to have a voice in your government. It is because they love hearing their own voice amplified for everyone else to hear, and it is because they love to dance and pose for Zucker and Rothstein in the hope that he’ll move them to prime time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  80. The reason these idiots will never be Trotsky is because Trotsky had been arrested, hassled beat up etc by the tsars police.

    This bimbos never done time in Siberia and probably couldn’t handle two days straight without a fuckin yoga session or martini night in lower Manhattan.

    These idealogues are spoiled as shit

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome


    This bimbos never done time in Siberia and probably couldn’t handle two days straight

     

    I think they might be able to handle it:


    First exile of Trotsky
    ...
    Being imprisoned and exiled from 1900 to 1902, Trotsky married and actively engaged in, both, self-education (which included reading the classics of Marxism) and journalistic work. Under the pseudonym "Antid Oto" Trotsky collaborated with the newspaper "Vostochnoye obozreniye" (Russian: Восточное обозрение, "The Eastern Review"), which published three dozen of his articles and essays, warmly accepted by the audience. During his first exile, the future Soviet People's Commissar was involved in literary studies, was writing about general issues of sociology and creativity, plus - about the themes of Siberian peasant life. Traveling between the villages of Ust-Kut, Nizhne-Ilimsk and the city of Verkholensk, Trotsky came into contact with many former and future revolutionary personalities, including Moisei Uritsky and Felix Dzerzhinsky.

     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. @IHTG
    Amy Wax in the crosshairs: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/03/15/penn-law-professor-who-said-black-students-rarely-perform-well-loses-teaching-duties/

    I’m not sure what it say or what it holds for the future when one “side” in debates over various issues simply resorts to outright lying, followed by bullying, shaming, name-calling, etc.

    I don’t claim to be sufficiently well-read in terms of history to say if something like this has ever happened before. What is the long-term effect of such brazen lying used to control discourse?

    Penn Law Dean Theodore Ruger said Wax spoke “disparagingly and inaccurately” when she claimed last year that she had “rarely, rarely” seen a black student finish in the top half of their class. “It is imperative for me as dean to state that these claims are false,” he said, according to the Daily Pennsylvanian, the student newspaper. “Black students have graduated in the top of the class at Penn Law,”

    Very well. It should be simple enough to produce evidence that Wax spoke “inaccurately”. Just to pick a number, say “rarely, rarely” means 10% or less. Ruger should produce evidence that 10% or more of black students finish in the top half. Further, Wax didn’t claim they never graduated in the “top” of the class, so saying that black students “have graduated in the top” does not counter Wax’s claims.

    “And contrary to any suggestion otherwise, black students at Penn Law are extremely successful, both inside and outside the classroom, in the job market, and in their careers.”

    This should be easy enough to prove. I’d like to see bar exam pass/fail data for the black students relative other races, as well as data on how many of them are still practicing law both 5 and 10 years after graduation. My guess is the pass rates are lower and that fewer blacks are still practicing law at the 5 and 10-year anniversaries. Also I’d guess that of those still practicing law at 5 and 10 year points, a disproportionate number are in diversicrat or public employment roles where their incompetence doesn’t really matter.

    Lastly for Dean Ruger: If these black students do so well despite their affirmative action level LSAT and undergrad grades, that tells us that the admission criteria used by Penn are meaningless. By that I mean if you can be successful at a top-tier law school despite significantly lower LSATs than your peers, then it naturally follows that the LSATs have no predictive power regarding future success in law school. So why do they use them to filter out other races?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. Read More
    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
    Too bad ye Brits don’t have a Second Amendment to back up ‘free speech.’
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. OT NPR has a pledge commercial in which Alec Baldwin literally yells at the listener as stupid and a waster of money (before settling on a liberal’s idea of a nice guy pitch) to get public money to validate the control of intelligence agencies amd the big leftist foundations. The final, nice guy pitch notes that journalism as a business is in trouble and newspapers are closing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  84. Surely you high IQ white males can compete with lowly dumb brown people?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Briny Schmuck
    Science has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is white men who are innately intellectual inferior. Though race is a social construct invented by white men in order to oppress brown and black bodies of color, white men as a distinct genetically isolatable demographic carry genetic mutations on their Y chromosome that incline them towards nastiness, brutishness, depravity, intolerance, bigotry, rampant violence, mass murder, rape, rapine, and just general intellectual inferiority. Black people and PoC and indigenous people were building advanced civilizations and discovering math and science and peacefully contacting native americans (no bloodshed, smallpox blankets or land theft involved!) while the mentally retarded simian troglodyte white man was crawling on all four in the caves of the tundra.
    Read Leonard Pitts, Ta Nehisi Coates, and Jane Elliott.
    And thank you, Tiny Duck, for being a voice of wisdom in these parts, in spite of your grotesque oppressive whiteness which ought to be abolished.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. @Flip
    So he wrote "Stranger in My Own Country - A Jewish Family in Modern Germany." Many white people feel that way in parts of Europe and America these days...

    Mounk milks the cow of German guilt in his book with quite some energy (that’s pretty German anyway…).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. anti-immigrant bigotry

    All of these people who claim they they’re opposed to simplistic thinking trot out the emotional phrases that are most apt to appeal to simplistic thinking…like “anti-immigrant bigotry.”

    This is a pretty easy concept to understand, Yascha Mounk: aspirin can be used for anything from relieving a headache to committing suicide. That’s a very wide spectrum. And because someone tries to limit the destructive uses of aspirin doesn’t make them anti-aspirin. So it is with immigration, which is like every other often positive thing in the universe (such as aspirin) in that it can be taken to excess even to the point of self-destruction.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  87. The link in the NYT leads to an article about the UKIP poster featuring a photograph of Merkel’s Marching Million:

    I thought it was “Merkel’s Million Marching Muslims”? :)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  88. Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  89. @Malcolm X-Lax
    Sublimated ethnonationalism. Openly supporting israel is the only safe "white" ethnonationalism allowed.

    That’s true for Tommy Robinson (who literally works directly for Jews and begged off criticism of Israel in a twitter conversation by telling his conversation partner “they’re cutting my checks”). But Robinson lives in England, where there is no freedom of speech, and the police will not protect you from leftist and Islamist violence. After all the money spent by AIPAC and all the threats launched by the ADL/SPLC, polite discussion is a numbers game, and Americans coming to this issue without British tyranny will not be able to avoid the consistent Israeli role in energetically pushing monumentally disasterous policies using the language of hatred and extermination. It is generous and religiously apt for the Israelites to provide us with an identity of exterminationists no matter what our actual opinions are (and after all our support), but an increasing number of Americans are seeing that you can disapprove of tribalist hypocrites (sovereignty for Israel but not anybody else) while embracing Israelis like Netanyahu and befriending Israel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Malcolm X-Lax
    I admire Tommy Robinson, but like a lot of earnest nationalists, he's naive. Poor guy's out there on the front lines getting his head knocked around--by street thug leftists, muslims and the British establishment--and he doesn't even realize the people who are out to get him are the same people cutting his checks...and that idiot Gavin McInnes's too. Now, these jews at least allow some of their hired goys to think nationalist thoughts so long as their targets are muslims. But none are allowed to mention the larger jewish hypocrisy or else the direct deposits stop showing up in their checking accounts.

    Here are some of Tommy's latest exploits, which you've probably already seen.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5777429/ex-edl-tommy-robinson-attacked-london-mcdonalds/

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. @Charles Pewitt
    https://twitter.com/JBurtonXP/status/974162066964664320

    Request to gold box this brilliant and textbook-ready tweet.
    As I type NPR blithely announces that it is not a “partisan bubble” (apparently the term “echo chamber” is “old and busted”).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @Malcolm X-Lax
    Sublimated ethnonationalism. Openly supporting israel is the only safe "white" ethnonationalism allowed.

    You got it. Of course individual euro ethnicities can be proud. Irish and Italian most visibly, but plenty of German and Polish cultural events and clubs in the midwest.

    I figure if you are too mixed to join any of them, just go by last name if possible. Or mother’s maiden. I went to German christmas events thrown by the local clubs and bands as a kid, fun times, sing O Tannenbaum.

    But for really old line Americans, who correctly see themselves as new Israelites, it is great to support the originals.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Malcolm X-Lax
    To the good fortune and great amusement of Israelis, who I'm sure no doubt chuckle endlessly about it (to themselves).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. 1
    “The fundamental problem today is that the anti-populists have become such radicals on immigration policy.” (Steve Sailer)

    2
    As Sir Ralf Dahrendorf, head of the London School of Economics in the 80s, once remarked: The populist is always the other, especially if he is about to win an argument on a braod scale (=win over the populace…).

    Somewhere in between these two lines lies – the tiny region of reason (and hope).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  93. So if I understand this correctly, Mounk is claiming that Rhodesia and Apartheid South Africa with their white minority rule were, in fact, impeccably democratic. Far more so than the states that succeeded them, Zimbabwe and the Rainbow Nation.

    If so, I agree with him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  94. Tweet from 2014:

    UK Out Of EU.

    American Empire Out Of Europe.

    Nation-State Democracy Instead Of Transnationalist Totalitarianism.

    UKIP Is On The March.

    —————————————-

    Holds up pretty good after 4 years.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  95. @Jason Liu
    Mounk is a leftist Jew, but his analysis of the current state of democracy is pretty accurate (and also in-line with many Chinese analysts, incidentally). The guy is clearly intelligent. I suggest people read him just to understand what the ideological battlefield is like.

    His recommendations are uninspired, however. Basically warmed over civic nationalism with bits of colorblind "fight the power" rhetoric mixed in. If he weren't so limited by western moral norms, he'd realize that liberal democracy is not suffering from a disease, it IS the disease.

    Mounk is also “the executive director of the Renewing the Centre team at the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change.”

    Tony Blair did not more damage to the UK than any other man in past 50 years. I am not sure if a sane man can trust Mr Blair’s associate.

    Read More
    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. @Jason Liu
    Mounk is a leftist Jew, but his analysis of the current state of democracy is pretty accurate (and also in-line with many Chinese analysts, incidentally). The guy is clearly intelligent. I suggest people read him just to understand what the ideological battlefield is like.

    His recommendations are uninspired, however. Basically warmed over civic nationalism with bits of colorblind "fight the power" rhetoric mixed in. If he weren't so limited by western moral norms, he'd realize that liberal democracy is not suffering from a disease, it IS the disease.

    Mounk is a leftist Jew, but his analysis of the current state of democracy is pretty accurate (and also in-line with many Chinese analysts, incidentally). The guy is clearly intelligent. I suggest people read him just to understand what the ideological battlefield is like.

    I tend to concur. I’m not sure he’s super intelligent. I can’t really tell, there isn’t any high level insight here.

    But reading his stuff, Mounk comes across as way, way less stupid than the typical Jewish woman screeching about this stuff, or regurgitating 3rd grade leftist platitudes like “race does not exist”.

    For all the stupid non-sequiturs, Mounk basically seems to understand that
    – people like to be part of a community and democracy really (historically) has only worked very well in reasonably coherent “mono-ethnic” nations
    and
    –that populism is a perfectly understandable reaction to tedious elite anti-democratic “expertism” and mismanagement.

    The problem is it’s precisely the Western elite’s greatest, most disastrous mismanagement–immigration and “multicultralism”–that Mounk really wants to preserve:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/03/opinion/sunday/liberals-reclaim-nationalism.html

    So long as nationalism is associated with one particular ethnic or religious group, it will serve to exclude and disadvantage others. The only way to keep the destructive potential of nationalism in check is to fight for a society in which collective identity transcends ethnic and religious boundaries — one in which citizens from all religious or ethnic backgrounds are treated with the same respect as citizens from the majority group.

    I.e. he wants nationalism without, you know, actual nations.

    In other words the same old, same old Jewish demand:
    Every nation should be open and penetrable by Jews. It’s just now called “democracy” or “liberalism” or “the modern liberal democratic order”.

    There’s nothing odd about this. You get a sense of this guy’s alienated, screwed up background

    https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/books/how-yascha-mounk-grew-up-a-stranger-in-my-own-country.html

    Mounk never really belonged anywhere. And his own family was too broken\worthless to provide much grounding. So he chafes at all these gentile nations which–used to–function really well and provide national belonging and purpose. He wants them to all be multicultural … even though he knows it doesn’t work!!!

    But this Jewish attitude/prescription is just unnatural and toxic. Most people are not rootless cosmopolitans. The normal human desire is for a politics that provides security, community and prosperity for oneself and even more importantly for your children and descendants. Not for ripping apart your race, culture and nation to create an accommodating globo-dystopia for foreigners.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2

    I.e. he wants nationalism without, you know, actual nations
     
    Nothing about the quote you were responding to says what you think it says. If anything, it implies the opposite.
    , @ben tillman

    In other words the same old, same old Jewish demand:

    Every nation should be open and penetrable by Jews. It’s just now called “democracy” or “liberalism” or “the modern liberal democratic order”.
     
    Today's globalism is just Isaiah 60:11-12 dressed up in ideological mumbo-jumbo.

    11"Your gates will be open continually; They will not be closed day or night, So that men may bring to you the wealth of the nations, With their kings led in procession. 12"For the nation and the kingdom which will not serve you will perish, And the nations will be utterly ruined.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @Lot
    You got it. Of course individual euro ethnicities can be proud. Irish and Italian most visibly, but plenty of German and Polish cultural events and clubs in the midwest.

    I figure if you are too mixed to join any of them, just go by last name if possible. Or mother's maiden. I went to German christmas events thrown by the local clubs and bands as a kid, fun times, sing O Tannenbaum.

    But for really old line Americans, who correctly see themselves as new Israelites, it is great to support the originals.

    To the good fortune and great amusement of Israelis, who I’m sure no doubt chuckle endlessly about it (to themselves).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. @YetAnotherAnon
    On reflection, the whole "microaggressions" saga is a very female way of looking at the world. In my experience women are more likely to say x which actually means y - men are more direct and if they want to say y will say it straight out.

    I occasionally have to remind my wife that "do you know where x is?" doesn't mean "what have you done with x", it just means I want to know where x is. It's not an implied criticism.

    Yetanother, I think I married your wife’s sister. Me…”I can’t find my camera, it was on the bookshelf in my office. Where did you put it?” Her…”Doesn’t belong on the bookshelf and all you had to do was ask.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anoni
    Same thing every time with my wife. I think proverbs has somethinh to say about contentious women
    , @YetAnotherAnon
    And if, after a week or two when you'd not missed it or asked for it, would she suddenly come out with (especially if she's a tad peeved about something completely different):

    "Do you know where your camera is?"

    "No, I'm not sure I do - I think it was on my office shelf"

    "It doesn't belong there, so I've moved it. It's in the (wherever) if you want it."
     
    It's just the second X chromosome, God bless it!

    As the Emperor Augustus said - “If we could survive without a wife, citizens of Rome, all of us would do without that nuisance; but since nature has so decreed that we cannot manage comfortably with them, nor live in any way without them, we must plan for our lasting preservation rather than for our temporary pleasure.”
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. @The Alarmist
    I'm warming up to the conspiracy theory that our overlords are space-alien-lizard-beings intent on sowing discord so that all of humanity is at war with one another, necessitating locking us down and penning us in, to make it easier for them to cull and eat us. Much more believable than the cults of immigration, diversity, and progressivism.

    Alarmist, Some times I wish space aliens would land on earth, sort out the chaff and return it to us in maybe three or four years. You know, like the length of an Obama administration.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/aliens-are-still-probably-real-and-heres-another-ufo-vi-1823749096
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. @Charles Pewitt
    Tweet from 2014:

    https://twitter.com/CharlesPewitt/status/512615424136327169

    In a MASS DEMOCRACY the propagandists in the MASS MEDIA work together with politicians to create TOTALITARIAN conformity.

    First we take back the United States, then we take back England. Or we can do it at the same time, doesn't matter to me.

    Mass immigration has been weaponized by evil globalizers in order to destroy European Christian nations.

    >Mass immigration has been weaponized by evil globalizers in order to destroy European Christian nations.

    Most fervent supporters of mass migration are priests & churches (at least in France).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt
    Pope Tango, the Catholic Corporation and the nation-wrecker figures in the Christian churches pushing mass immigration should be deported to the Congo or some other part of Africa.

    There are some Catholic Corporation dirtbags in the United States who I would love to deport to the Congo. All of the so-called "religious" frauds profiting from the REFUGEE OVERLOAD racket should be deported as well.

    The answer to mass immigration is mass deportation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. @reiner Tor
    I wouldn't mind so much if our overlords were ruling us incompetently largely without our consent, cutting their own taxes, deregulating financial services which then lead to financial crises, starting adventures in third world countries leading to the countless deaths of third world civilians, loss of life for our own soldiers, and a waste of money, etc. etc.

    IF

    they didn't wish to swamp our countries with third world immigrants

    AND

    they also weren't blindly tottering towards nuclear war.

    These are my two requirements of any governments: work to preserve the ethnic composition of my country (if Wakanda is 100% Wakandan, keep it 100% Wakandan; if, however, the country in question is 0% Wakandan and, say, 100% white Swedish, keep it 0% Wakandan and 100% Swedish); and reduce the possibility of a nuclear war to a minimum.

    That’s why Ann Coulter says immigration is the only issue that matters.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. @Buffalo Joe
    Yetanother, I think I married your wife's sister. Me..."I can't find my camera, it was on the bookshelf in my office. Where did you put it?" Her..."Doesn't belong on the bookshelf and all you had to do was ask."

    Same thing every time with my wife. I think proverbs has somethinh to say about contentious women

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. @JollyOldSoul
    "At first, populist movements often present themselves as deeply, even radically, democratic. The 2016 Brexit referendum is a case in point. Inviting citizens to vote on such an enormous policy change was a simple enactment of direct democracy."

    There is nothing "radically democratic" about a plebiscite. That is the simplest and most basic form of democracy of all. Representative government is the perversion of democracy (though generally a useful one).

    Direct democracy has its problems. It's hard to account for random, contradictory expressions of the people's will, and it can be hard at times to even settle on what the people should be voting on. But on major issues that can effect irreversible changes to a nation (such as immigration or accession to a new union, such as the EU) it can be absolutely essential.

    The establishment's real objection to direct democracy is that it undermines their ability to divide and conquer, and it makes it harder for them to buy off the people in power. There is no way to do an end run around the will of the people by buying out the leaders who are supposed to represent them.

    Jolly, There are rumblings in California for a secession referendum. Liberals seceding from “Trump’s America” is ok with them. I guess they would petition to rejoin the union if, let’s say, Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren was elected POTUS.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    Jolly, There are rumblings in California for a secession referendum. Liberals seceding from “Trump’s America” is ok with them.
     
    I would love those rumblings to grow, take form and actually become the earthquake of secession. (Steve could give us reports from the new nation of California.)

    Unfortunately, this is just whiny leftist petulance. They are so clueless they don't even understand who's who and what's what--or "who whom". They are under the delusion that deplorable white men are "holding us back" or some such. When the reality is the reverse. Immigrants come to the US--and other Western nations--because white men build nice stuff! Nice places, nice nations.

    California has a super nice *climate*, but Baja isn't wildly different. It's what American white guys did with California that makes Mexicans--and a lot of other people--come there rather than to Baja.

    In other words, it's the "coalition of the fringes" that is parasitic on the core, not the other way around. This is not to dismiss that plenty of Asians, and even some Mexicans are productive and help build civilization. But they've come here precisely because white guys have overall done a better job of it here, than their own people did in their homelands.

    Bottom line: the left doesn't want to secede from white guys. Their demand is that whatever white guys create belongs to them. Their core demand is white slavery not to take the odd piece of white territory and secede leaving the white majority alone.
    , @JerseyJeffersonian
    I think that the chances of Ms Harris or Ms Warren being elected to the Presidency if CA had withdrawn from the Union would be negligible, so I think that that eventuality is null and void.

    No, I think they would want to rejoin the Union after they experience a catastrophic earthquake, or after that big chunk of Hawai'i finally falls into the ocean and a tsunami 1000 feet high sweeps down upon the coast. Then they would be whining about how we were always the dearest of kindred, and how it would be heartless to not want to finance their recovery after alienating themselves from the Union.

    Sort of as if your significant other decided they no longer wanted to be linked with you so they could whore around and smoke crack, things that are ever so much more "self-actualizing" than staying in some boring relationship with a person committed to being a grown-up accepting of their responsibility to be mature not only for their own benefit, but also for the support and benefit of that significant other... only to have them come down with degenerative syphillis, and suffer the ravages of drug addiction, and then - and only then - to want you to save their asses.

    Not sure how they would handle having to deal with the international treaties necessary to address water access from the Union, or trade issues, or how to handle their chunk of the national obligations. Then there might be issues about free movement of people from CA to the Union, their joint border having become an international border at that point. And similar. The petulant pissiness reminds me of some lyrics from Frank Zappa's Teenage Wind:

    Free is when you don't have to
    Pay for nothing
    Or do nothing
    We want to be free
    Free as the wind


    Off-loading the BS from Californiah has a certain cachet, you must admit. If they want to commit suicide, well just make sure that the quarantine is of industrial strength. You want to be a Sanctuary State, well, knock yourselves out. Don't be surprised if we don't want to let all of that Vibrancy across the border, and we send them right back to you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  105. OT Monnesota School Violence: Somalis Versus Blacks
    Anonymous (ID: o4uGw5Tk)
    03/15/18(Thu)13:15:48 No.164071051

    Diversity isn’t a “strength” even among the Diverse

    Tie-ins with Broward County policies that enabled the ******* Shooting and Saint Skittles

    >Last Friday, March 2, multiple fights broke out during the school’s second lunch period. Despite attempts to sweep the issue under the rug and downplay the violence, persistent students and parents forced the administration to address the situation.

    >The fight was not limited to the two students, who were reported by classmates to be a Somali-American and an African American. Over 20 students joined the chaos soon after the first punches were thrown and the original videos that surfaced were titled “Somalis vs. Blacks.” The original videos have been taken down due to pressure from school administration. The school’s resource officer was present in the cafeteria. In an attempt to control the situation, school officials put the cafeteria into lockdown for 15 minutes after the allotted 30-minute lunch period, keeping any students from leaving or entering, including the ones not involved. All staff members that were not otherwise occupied were called to action.

    https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/269592/violence-paralyzes-minnesota-school-district-olivia-anderson-blythe

    http://archive.is/40alS

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  106. OT: In running out of white people news, another brand new piece of infrastructure collapses, this time in Florida. Feel free to peruse the engineering company’s twitter feed and pictures.

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/pedestrian-bridge-florida-international-university-collapses/story?id=53774444

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  107. @YetAnotherAnon
    OT, via Dennis Prager, "the official University of California list of racist “microaggressions”"

    https://academicaffairs.ucsc.edu/events/documents/Microaggressions_Examples_Arial_2014_11_12.pdf

    As the psychiatrist said of Basil Fawlty, "there's enough material here for a whole conference!".

    Another Monty Python sketch comes to mind.

    Twas Michael Palin as the game show host for “Prejudice, the show that gives you a chance to have a go at Wops, Krauts, Nigs, Eye-Ties, Gippos, Bubbles, Froggies, Chinks, Yids, Jocks, Polacks, Paddies and Dagoes”:

    Now the result of last week’s competition when we asked you to find a derogatory term for the Belgians. Well, the response was enormous and we took quite a long time sorting out the winners. There were some very clever entries. Mrs Hatred of Leicester said ‘let’s not call them anything, let’s just ignore them’

    And since we all need a bit of Carol Cleveland:

    Ending cut off:

    Beginning cut off:

    Take your pick.

    Mhm.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. @Buffalo Joe
    Alarmist, Some times I wish space aliens would land on earth, sort out the chaff and return it to us in maybe three or four years. You know, like the length of an Obama administration.
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. @Calvin X Hobbes
    OT:

    What a Professor Can't Say

    Penn says Amy Wax will no longer teach required first-year courses after another widely criticized set of comments about race -- this time about black law students at the university -- comes to light.

    https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/03/15/penn-says-amy-wax-will-no-longer-teach-required-first-year-law-courses-after-more#disqus_thread

    QUOTE:
    The new controversy involves a video interview by Glenn Loury, professor of economics at Brown University, who has been critical of affirmative action. In the interview, Wax says, “I don’t think I’ve ever seen a black student graduate in the top quarter of the class, and rarely, rarely in the top half.”

    Wax added, “I can think of one or two students who've graduated in the top half of my required first-year course,” out of about 90 students per year. She also said that the University of Pennsylvania Law Review has a racial diversity mandate and suggested that some black students shouldn't go to college.
    ...
    Ruger in his letter says that it’s “imperative for me as dean to state that these claims are false: black students have graduated in the top of the class at Penn Law, and the Law Review does not have a diversity mandate. Rather, its editors are selected based on a competitive process.”

    Contrary to any suggestion otherwise, he continued, “black students at Penn Law are extremely successful, both inside and outside the classroom, in the job market and in their careers.”

    Ruger didn’t specify exactly how wrong Wax is, and a university spokesperson did not share specific information on law school performance by racial group. Both Ruger and the spokesperson cited Penn Law’s confidential grading policy, with Ruger asserting that Wax “is not free to transgress the policy that student grades are confidential, or to use her access to those Penn Law students who are required to be in her class to further her scholarly ends without students’ permission.”

    END QUOTE

    For numbers from 1992, see

    TABLE 5.1: DISTRIBUTION OF FIRST-YEAR GPAS AT “ELITE” SCHOOLS, SPRING1992,BY RACE

    http://www.adversity.net/Sander/Systemic_Analysis_FINAL.pdf

    See also TABLE 5.3 for the situation at lower-tier law schools.

    A reasonable estimate from those numbers is that 3.6% of black students at "elite" law schools rank in the top quarter. So maybe there are a few black law students at Penn in the top quarter.

    The consistent outcome across tiers is that about half of black law students rank in the bottom 10%.

    Also extremely interesting is

    Table 1: Predictions of first-year class rank in law school by prospective students at all law schools, BPS, 1991

    http://www.elsblog.org/the_empirical_legal_studi/2006/09/why_doesnt_the_.html#more

    0% of law students predict they'll rank in the bottom quarter in law school, only 1% predict they'll be in the next quartile. Hispanics and whites are very similar in their over-optimistic predictions (though almost certainly not in their actual results), but black predictions are even higher than white predictions. Imagine the surprise of black law students when they discover that coming up with snappy comebacks like "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit" is not what the law is all about.

    Penn could always release the data and prove she’s wrong. But they won’t.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Unladen Swallow
    Their problem is the data won't show she is wrong, that's why. Sander had to fight the California Bar Association for a decade to get them to release the bar examination pass data by race. They claimed privacy rights despite the fact that Sander always said the individual data wouldn't be released and kept anonymous. The state SC ruled in his favor, but as far as I know they still haven't given him the data.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. So he wrote “Stranger in My Own Country – A Jewish Family in Modern Germany.” Many white people feel that way in parts of Europe and America these days…

    Jewish “alienation” is another reason Jews should be made to excuse themselves from the conversation around borders. With the few “borders for thee, too” Jews excused last, of course.

    Representative government is the perversion of democracy (though generally a useful one).

    It’s archaic, antique, obsolete. We’re not an agrarian society that moves information by muscle power anymore. Funny how the leftists who attack the 1st and 2nd Amendments as archaic never tumble to this.

    Israel has never been more popular in the USA! Sorry SJW/BDS losers, your extensive anti-Israel efforts have been futile at anything than making yourself unemployable in many sectors.

    Largely a mile wide, and an inch deep.

    Didn’t BDS just push some of their planks into the California Democrat Party primary?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  111. I’m warming up to the conspiracy theory that our overlords are space-alien-lizard-beings intent on sowing discord so that all of humanity is at war with one another, necessitating locking us down and penning us in, to make it easier for them to cull and eat us. Much more believable than the cults of immigration, diversity, and progressivism.

    True. Also, the chances are (relatively) good that a super-advanced civilization has long since discovered and monitored us, and for whatever reason, decided not to exterminate us. This has to do with evolutionary time scales vs technological time scales; the latter move far faster than the former; if there’s a lot of candidates for advanced spacefaring civilization out there, then a lot of them will have had plenty of time to blanket the galaxy (0.5 of light speed means only 2 or 3 hundred thousand years to blanket the galaxy, an evolutionary eye-blink).

    If they have, then the fact that we haven’t detected them, and the fact that they haven’t exterminated us, both mean they’re probably “enlightened” in some way.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  112. Real democracy is apparently Jewish elites using foreign populations and native collaborators against the native population.

    How about pushing this kind of democracy on Israel?

    Allow Right of Return for Palestinians and have them vote with self-loathing Jews against nationalist-populist Jews in Israel.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  113. Correction, they both mean the aliens, if any, are highly advanced, and the restraint means they’re probably enlightened.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  114. But that’s probably part of the reason why the overlords want demographic replacement. People don’t respect people who tolerate this kind of abuse and who lack moral integrity. They only have contempt for them. It’s like the relationship between an abuser and an abuse victim. The more the abuse victim tolerates his own abuse and is also indifferent to or even aid and abets and participates in the abuse of others, the greater the contempt the abuser has for the abuse victim and the more he wants to just get rid of him entirely.

    You say “people,” but it’s not a human universal. Lots of people don’t automatically grab every advantage they see. Well, lots of White people don’t.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  115. Sorry SJW/BDS losers, your extensive anti-Israel efforts have been futile at anything than making yourself unemployable in many sectors.

    And this when the “left” runs the country. It’s a real mystery wrapped inside an enigma.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  116. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    What exactly is the end game for elites like this?

    Do they truly believe that turning Europe and the United States into some global bazaar is going to be good for them over the long run? Would any them willingly choose to live in Africa? I'm trying to put myself in their shoes to figure out what's in it for them.

    Yes, I can see how it works for them for a time. All these 3rd worlders will vote for their side and will push down those uppity working-class whites, but it's not as though it ends there. The 3rd worlders' numbers will grow and society will get quickly worse.

    At some point, the blacks and browns will want their own elites. At some point, the elites' gated communities will feel more like prisons than country clubs. At some point, elite or not, they will be the Boer farmer waiting for the next attack.

    Granted, that could take a couple of generations, but elites have children too.

    “What exactly is the end game for elites like this?”

    And we have reached critical mass for the false narrative–”elites”–however defined nowadays–have been plotting and scheming to destroy everything wholesome and good. And the general public is too stupid to realize it, because they have been duped wholesale by the media and institutions.

    “Do they truly believe that turning Europe and the United States into some global bazaar is going to be good for them over the long run?”

    IF that was the plan of elites.

    “Yes, I can see how it works for them for a time. All these 3rd worlders will vote for their side and will push down those uppity working-class whites, but it’s not as though it ends there.”

    Right, because white elites seek to denigrate their own kind. It’s in their DNA. And, of course, they teach their offspring the ways on how to stick it to Whitey and normies. It really makes for great entertainment on their part, right?

    “At some point, the blacks and browns will want their own elites. At some point, the elites’ gated communities will feel more like prisons than country clubs. At some point, elite or not, they will be the Boer farmer waiting for the next attack.”

    Just change your name to Chicken Little and be done with it already.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Not this time, Corny. I have a friend who is from South Africa. His parents are Boer farmers. They have neighbors who have been attacked.

    You strike me as an unserious person, someone who never got into a school yard fight. I can only hope that you really are a troll, that you are, in fact, fighting for your people's interest. Otherwise, you are a fool and a wimp, and I can't wait for your kind to be culled from the herd.

    Keep up the good work, Corny. You've taught me a lot. You've taught me that debating with the other side doesn't work. Push back on the ground, that works. Quietly, slowly, but push back. For that, I am very thankful.

    I will never respond to you again.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. @YetAnotherAnon
    "At some point, the blacks and browns will want their own elites. At some point, the elites’ gated communities will feel more like prisons than country clubs. At some point, elite or not, they will be the Boer farmer waiting for the next attack."

    How's that working out in Brazil? Looks pretty comfortable for the elite. With all that money you can buy a lot of security.

    That's the future they've got in mind.

    Catholic social integralism historically made Brazil a mulatto society and racial dynamics do not work even remotely closely in Brazil to the way South Africa’s ever have. Although, with the ongoing collapse of Catholicism in Latin America plus American global influence and obviously lower birthrates on the whiter end of Brazil’s mulatto spectrum I would not be surprised if racial lines begin to sharpen there eventually as well, with similarly detrimental effects on the white population and indeed civilization overall.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. OT

    A pedestrian bridge, whose installation was “about building bridges and student safety. This project accomplishes our mission beautifully,” has collapsed.

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/15/fiu-bridge-collapses-fatalities-reported-florida-officials-say.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  119. @Buffalo Joe
    Yetanother, I think I married your wife's sister. Me..."I can't find my camera, it was on the bookshelf in my office. Where did you put it?" Her..."Doesn't belong on the bookshelf and all you had to do was ask."

    And if, after a week or two when you’d not missed it or asked for it, would she suddenly come out with (especially if she’s a tad peeved about something completely different):

    “Do you know where your camera is?”

    “No, I’m not sure I do – I think it was on my office shelf”

    “It doesn’t belong there, so I’ve moved it. It’s in the (wherever) if you want it.”

    It’s just the second X chromosome, God bless it!

    As the Emperor Augustus said – “If we could survive without a wife, citizens of Rome, all of us would do without that nuisance; but since nature has so decreed that we cannot manage comfortably with them, nor live in any way without them, we must plan for our lasting preservation rather than for our temporary pleasure.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    Yet, Thank you and I love quote.
    , @Quidam Civis Romanus
    Actually, the quote comes from Q. Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus, who said those words during his term as censor in 131 BC, in a speech in which he was urging the general populace to get married. The words were later quoted by Augustus in the senate as justification for his proposed legislation on marriage (Suetonius, Life of Augustus 89).

    Here is the Latin text (as quoted by Aulus Gellius in Attic Nights 1.6):

    Si sine uxore possemus, Quirites, omnes ea molestia careremus. Set quoniam ita natura tradidit ut nec cum illis satis commode, nec sine illis uno modo vivi possit, saluti perpetuae potius quam brevi voluptati consulendum est.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. @IHTG
    Amy Wax in the crosshairs: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/03/15/penn-law-professor-who-said-black-students-rarely-perform-well-loses-teaching-duties/

    Amy Wax is a Jew who is on team America, team white, team Western Civ, team civilization … ergo, she’s gotta go!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. @AndrewR
    One arguably major problem I see is that immigration-restrictionists seldom, if ever, call out the Lügenpresse for accusations of "anti-immigrant sentiment." To paraphrase other popular quotes ("don't hate the player;
    hate the game" and "love the sinner; hate the sin"), immigrants aren't what we should oppose; mass immigration is.

    People serious about immigration restriction are foolish to not call their opponents' framing out. Accepting, implicitly or otherwise, that you don't simply oppose immigration but that you also oppose immigrants themselves is a great way to make people think you're callous if not evil. The best response to the "anti-immigrant" slur would probably be "being anti-mass-immigration* is not the same as being anti-immigrant, and it's absolutely disgusting of you to imply otherwise. Do you have any shame?"

    *in the specific case of this JYT article, it would obviously be rhetorically better to say "being against letting millions of unvetted young men from around the world into one's country in a period of months is not the same..." Merkel's crimes are obviously on a scale much larger than politicians who endorse mass immigration in an orderly, sustainable [in the short to medium term] fashion. But the "anti-immigrant" slur is not just used when discussing Merkel's crimes, so the quote I wrote above would be a good boilerplate to be modified when appropriate.

    So we on the right are not “anti-immigrant”, we are “anti-dislocation“: not opposed to people having different skin colors and folkways, but opposed to their being uprooted and dropped arbitrarily here and opposed to us having them uninvitedly dropped on us.

    Yes, this looks like it should have broader appeal and implicitly refute the knee-jerk leftist demand that the “Other” always be “helped” (usually by sticking him in an alien country with an EBT card).

    I’ll be road testing this neologism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. @HunInTheSun
    "Given that Mr. Mounk is German Jewish, he ought to be among the brightest of the bright, but he apparently doesn’t see the obvious contradictions in his own theses."

    Mounk is a Polish Jew, like Rosa Luxemburg, which places him amongst the radicals of Jewry, and his views are consistent with the white-hot hatred for Western Christian civilization that characterizes his kind. Mounk's Germanness is an accident of birth and in no way qualifies him to be numbered amongst genuine German Jews, whose ancestors arrived in Germany a thousand years ago and were overwhelmingly loyal to their land up until the recent unpleasantness.

    “…whose ancestors arrived in Germany a thousand years ago and were overwhelmingly loyal to their land up until the recent unpleasantness.”

    LOL. The trope that never gets old.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. @eah
    "The People"

    Ismael Chamu: “F— White People,” “Kill Cops”, “Class War” -- @KamalaHarris: "People like Ismael represent our future"

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DYVP5goXUAAtDv5.jpg

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DYVP6bbX4AINKJp.jpg

    If the post-Trump Republican party returns to market fundamentalists like Paul Ryan, Kamala Harris will be the next president. Like Obama, she’s an empty brown vessel waiting to be filled with Wall Street wisdom. We’ll get a neocon foreign policy and continued psychological warfare directed against Whites.

    Read More
    • Agree: Tyrion 2
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    This current Mounk stuff seems like a recycling of the sort of exaggerated and oversimplified contempt for average Americans seen in 60s double-dome scholarship like Richard Hofstadter’s The Paranoid Style in American Politics. There, the maniac Goldwater was heir to cornfed Bible Belt redneck progressives and populists, prefiguring deplorables clinging to guns and religion etc. Ho-hum. A grain of truth, maybe, so watch out for real antisemites and real racists. But it’s still them vs. us, which side are you on?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  125. @Buffalo Joe
    Jolly, There are rumblings in California for a secession referendum. Liberals seceding from "Trump's America" is ok with them. I guess they would petition to rejoin the union if, let's say, Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren was elected POTUS.

    Jolly, There are rumblings in California for a secession referendum. Liberals seceding from “Trump’s America” is ok with them.

    I would love those rumblings to grow, take form and actually become the earthquake of secession. (Steve could give us reports from the new nation of California.)

    Unfortunately, this is just whiny leftist petulance. They are so clueless they don’t even understand who’s who and what’s what–or “who whom”. They are under the delusion that deplorable white men are “holding us back” or some such. When the reality is the reverse. Immigrants come to the US–and other Western nations–because white men build nice stuff! Nice places, nice nations.

    California has a super nice *climate*, but Baja isn’t wildly different. It’s what American white guys did with California that makes Mexicans–and a lot of other people–come there rather than to Baja.

    In other words, it’s the “coalition of the fringes” that is parasitic on the core, not the other way around. This is not to dismiss that plenty of Asians, and even some Mexicans are productive and help build civilization. But they’ve come here precisely because white guys have overall done a better job of it here, than their own people did in their homelands.

    Bottom line: the left doesn’t want to secede from white guys. Their demand is that whatever white guys create belongs to them. Their core demand is white slavery not to take the odd piece of white territory and secede leaving the white majority alone.

    Read More
    • Agree: ben tillman
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. @Almost Missouri
    Given that Mr. Mounk is German Jewish, he ought to be among the brightest of the bright, but he apparently doesn't see the obvious contradictions in his own theses.

    He admits that democracy has only ever worked in ethnically homogeneous states, but insists we throw caution to the wind and toss out democracy's only proven pillar. Because otherwise the democratic populations might shrink to only 97% of their all-time highs ... or something.

    He claims this is necessary to maintain the social welfare-state, yet social welfare-states have only worked (and none has worked very long) in ethnically homogeneous states. So at each step he is agruing opposite, mutually incompatible things. Which circle he squares by just saying, well, we just have to do it anyway.

    His arguments flagrantly at odds with themselves are bad enough, but he compounds this illogic by endorsing dishonesty. How will this counter-logical project work? By massive lying and bribery!

    "build a new [fake] national narrative"
     

    "domesticate nationalism by filling it with our own meaning"
     

    "get away from nationalism and substitute it with other things like social justice"
     

    "they have to be convinced that they can ... be better off materially"
     
    PS don't try this in Israel, he says, cuz uh, it might not work or something.

    The sad thing is that a lot of people, you know, the demos, have signed up for the Mounk view: that when democracy and the welfare-state clash, democracy must be sacrificed to save the welfare-state. In reality that will destroy both of course, but these people refuse to acknowledge pesky little things like reality.

    I've banged on here before about the poison pill that is the welfare-state. But it just keeps being true. It corrupts everything it touches. Its eldritch energies have escaped the orb and turned voters into pod people: "More soma! More soma!" ... or however that hackneyed metaphor works.

    Israel still can’t deport a single illegal immigrant, despite the promises of their government – they are hostaged by their liberal judiciary. The High Court has blocked the plan to deport illegal immigrants from Israel today.

    Although they have some strange stories:

    ‘Can illegal immigrant get legal status by committing rape?’

    Illegal immigrant living in Israel rapes Israeli woman, then demands legal status in Israel as father of child conceived in rape.

    https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/243226

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. @IHTG
    Has Jamie Kirchick suddenly become slightly WOKE on immigration? Apparently it's now okay not to be "liberal" on immigration: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/democracy-post/wp/2018/03/08/you-can-fight-for-liberal-values-without-being-liberal-on-immigration/

    That's not what he said about Stephen Miller back in October!

    >> Has Jamie Kirchick suddenly …

    How can one take a grown man seriously when he goes around calling himself Jamie.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. I listened to a little of Mounk and the problem was that he just assumed that he was on the right side. Therefore liberal institutions and democracy are at odds. In fact the left seems to be making this mistake all the time: acting like fascists in the process of opposing what they think is fascism. Very peculiar.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  129. @reiner Tor
    I wouldn't mind so much if our overlords were ruling us incompetently largely without our consent, cutting their own taxes, deregulating financial services which then lead to financial crises, starting adventures in third world countries leading to the countless deaths of third world civilians, loss of life for our own soldiers, and a waste of money, etc. etc.

    IF

    they didn't wish to swamp our countries with third world immigrants

    AND

    they also weren't blindly tottering towards nuclear war.

    These are my two requirements of any governments: work to preserve the ethnic composition of my country (if Wakanda is 100% Wakandan, keep it 100% Wakandan; if, however, the country in question is 0% Wakandan and, say, 100% white Swedish, keep it 0% Wakandan and 100% Swedish); and reduce the possibility of a nuclear war to a minimum.

    Help keep Wakanda Wakandan!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. OT Activist Legacy Media in Self-Eating Throes
    Wired: You Should Ignore Movie Rating Sites

    We compared how IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic rate their movies. While the ratings differ, they all have one thing in common: a bias toward men

    Picking a film to watch is an emotional rollercoaster. First, you have to deal with the crushing knowledge that none of your streaming services of choice actually have the film you want to watch. Then you narrow the field down to three films that you never really intended to watch but are the only half-decent options available.
    At this point, paralysed by the thought of making the wrong decisions in life, you will Google the ratings of these films to find out if they’re worth your time. Three hours later – unable to make a decision because of the conflicting information – you realise that it’s too late to start watching a film now anyway and settle down to watch old episodes of Parks and Rec.

    Before we go any further let me just say that I looked really fat in the mirror this morning, but now feel intolerably better about myself.

    [after a description of IMDB rating features] This all sounds very egalitarian, but as we’ll see, most IMDb voters are male, which seems to skew the rankings in favour of films that are aimed more towards men.

    Equality of outcome is the face-mask of people who never worked with their hands. It is self-evidently impossible to those of us in flyover country, but impossible to shake for people relying solely on logic.

    In short: Rotten Tomatoes ranks selected critics’ reviews, and tweaks the rankings to favour films with a large number of positive reviews, and you guessed it. Most of rotten Tomatoes’ selected critics are men.

    Why do they never make the connection that no amount of liberalism can save you from your circumstances of birth? Because of a universally-found, personally-held delusion, spelled out by Keith Haring, that they can be redeemed from whiteness and counted among the elect by their good works (which for this crowd means words and not actually working).

    Metacritic seems to place a bit more emphasis on publishers rather than critics, so it’s hard to get an idea what the gender balance of reviewers is. Its top-ranking film – Citizen Kane – is based on reviews from only two women and ten men, though.

    Secretive wrecker, refusing to divulge your hiring information!

    Don’t be tricked into thinking that movie-ranking sites give some kind of objective rating on how good a film is. All three of the above sites are skewed pretty heavily towards the opinions of men.

    Says Matt Reynolds, the man. And in a world where females never share their opinions that is not Who We Are.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  131. @YetAnotherAnon
    "At some point, the blacks and browns will want their own elites. At some point, the elites’ gated communities will feel more like prisons than country clubs. At some point, elite or not, they will be the Boer farmer waiting for the next attack."

    How's that working out in Brazil? Looks pretty comfortable for the elite. With all that money you can buy a lot of security.

    That's the future they've got in mind.

    No, not really. The European elites wants America. They want to have the same fun diverse atmosphere you guys have. We can all see that’s delusional but that’s not how typical Europeans see it. After all, if you’re sold a convincing story by the US media then many people will believe it…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt

    No, not really. The European elites wants America. They want to have the same fun diverse atmosphere you guys have. We can all see that’s delusional but that’s not how typical Europeans see it. After all, if you’re sold a convincing story by the US media then many people will believe it…

     

    Hillary Clinton lives in a mostly White town called Chappaqua. Chappaqua is in the state of New York. The ruling class of the American Empire lives in mostly White towns, and the cities they live in have mostly White sections where they live as well.

    The ruling class -- I will not call them elites -- in Europe most likely live in mostly White areas, too.

    The ruling classes of European Christian nations are using the importation of racial diversity via mass immigration as a demographic weapon to destroy national sovereignty and cultural cohesion.

    Where does Theresa May and Angela Merkel live? I bet they don't live cheek by jowl with the Third Worlders they are flooding into their nations.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. @AnotherDad

    Mounk is a leftist Jew, but his analysis of the current state of democracy is pretty accurate (and also in-line with many Chinese analysts, incidentally). The guy is clearly intelligent. I suggest people read him just to understand what the ideological battlefield is like.
     
    I tend to concur. I'm not sure he's super intelligent. I can't really tell, there isn't any high level insight here.

    But reading his stuff, Mounk comes across as way, way less stupid than the typical Jewish woman screeching about this stuff, or regurgitating 3rd grade leftist platitudes like "race does not exist".

    For all the stupid non-sequiturs, Mounk basically seems to understand that
    -- people like to be part of a community and democracy really (historically) has only worked very well in reasonably coherent "mono-ethnic" nations
    and
    --that populism is a perfectly understandable reaction to tedious elite anti-democratic "expertism" and mismanagement.

    The problem is it's precisely the Western elite's greatest, most disastrous mismanagement--immigration and "multicultralism"--that Mounk really wants to preserve:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/03/opinion/sunday/liberals-reclaim-nationalism.html

    So long as nationalism is associated with one particular ethnic or religious group, it will serve to exclude and disadvantage others. The only way to keep the destructive potential of nationalism in check is to fight for a society in which collective identity transcends ethnic and religious boundaries — one in which citizens from all religious or ethnic backgrounds are treated with the same respect as citizens from the majority group.
     
    I.e. he wants nationalism without, you know, actual nations.

    In other words the same old, same old Jewish demand:
    Every nation should be open and penetrable by Jews. It's just now called "democracy" or "liberalism" or "the modern liberal democratic order".

    There's nothing odd about this. You get a sense of this guy's alienated, screwed up background
    https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/books/how-yascha-mounk-grew-up-a-stranger-in-my-own-country.html
    Mounk never really belonged anywhere. And his own family was too broken\worthless to provide much grounding. So he chafes at all these gentile nations which--used to--function really well and provide national belonging and purpose. He wants them to all be multicultural ... even though he knows it doesn't work!!!

    But this Jewish attitude/prescription is just unnatural and toxic. Most people are not rootless cosmopolitans. The normal human desire is for a politics that provides security, community and prosperity for oneself and even more importantly for your children and descendants. Not for ripping apart your race, culture and nation to create an accommodating globo-dystopia for foreigners.

    I.e. he wants nationalism without, you know, actual nations

    Nothing about the quote you were responding to says what you think it says. If anything, it implies the opposite.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    Nothing about the quote you were responding to says what you think it says. If anything, it implies the opposite.
     
    Agree it's not telling. I read the review of his book Steve linked to, and the piece Mounk had in the Times a week ago. But there isn't any one paragraph you can pull that neatly captures where he's at. There's nothing complicated or insightful about what he says, there's just a lot of blather to get there.

    Basically Mounk is against nationalism--unsurprisingly, he wasn't actually part of the nation he grew up in (Germany). But he realizes that liberals are seeing a counter-reaction to their anti-nationalism and he's worried about it. Mounk diagnoses some of this as essentially that liberals are post-nationalist, but actual people find globalism too empty and unsatisfying--too thin a gruel. So they are losing the battle to nationalists who actually offer something. But Mounk thinks those guys are bad, bad, bad. (And i can pretty solidly determine his intense distaste is to their actual nationalism not some other aspect of "right" politics, because it's quite clear in the case of many of the groups--e.g. the National Front--that they aren't necessarily laisse faire or against the welfare state.)

    So what Mounk urges is a sort of civic nationalism: Rally behind the flag guys! But not because the flag actually represents an actually existing particular people, culture, history, *nation* that you're part of but because ... well ... um ... there's a big state (run by people like ... Mounk!) which will help us all build a glorious, glorious future together--despite our diversity and not actually having anything in common but being policed by the same taxing authority.

    As i said ... he wants nationalism without, you know, actual nations.

    (Note--if that's the source of confusion--when i say "nation" i mean a nation. I don't mean the super-state that controls a piece of territory--leftists are always for the super-state, that doesn't mean they are for nations. No i mean the actual nation--the distinct people of a place with their history and culture.)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. @Anonymous

    I wouldn’t mind so much if our overlords were ruling us incompetently largely without our consent, cutting their own taxes, deregulating financial services which then lead to financial crises, starting adventures in third world countries leading to the countless deaths of third world civilians, loss of life for our own soldiers, and a waste of money, etc. etc.
     
    But that's probably part of the reason why the overlords want demographic replacement. People don't respect people who tolerate this kind of abuse and who lack moral integrity. They only have contempt for them. It's like the relationship between an abuser and an abuse victim. The more the abuse victim tolerates his own abuse and is also indifferent to or even aid and abets and participates in the abuse of others, the greater the contempt the abuser has for the abuse victim and the more he wants to just get rid of him entirely.

    But that’s probably part of the reason why the overlords want demographic replacement. People don’t respect people who tolerate this kind of abuse and who lack moral integrity.

    The new people are even worse in this respect; the overlords will quickly toss them aside for machines and AI.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. @Tiny Duck
    Surely you high IQ white males can compete with lowly dumb brown people?

    Science has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is white men who are innately intellectual inferior. Though race is a social construct invented by white men in order to oppress brown and black bodies of color, white men as a distinct genetically isolatable demographic carry genetic mutations on their Y chromosome that incline them towards nastiness, brutishness, depravity, intolerance, bigotry, rampant violence, mass murder, rape, rapine, and just general intellectual inferiority. Black people and PoC and indigenous people were building advanced civilizations and discovering math and science and peacefully contacting native americans (no bloodshed, smallpox blankets or land theft involved!) while the mentally retarded simian troglodyte white man was crawling on all four in the caves of the tundra.
    Read Leonard Pitts, Ta Nehisi Coates, and Jane Elliott.
    And thank you, Tiny Duck, for being a voice of wisdom in these parts, in spite of your grotesque oppressive whiteness which ought to be abolished.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. @IHTG
    Amy Wax in the crosshairs: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/03/15/penn-law-professor-who-said-black-students-rarely-perform-well-loses-teaching-duties/

    Sad. That idiot dean doesn’t even bother to refute her; all he can say is that some black students have done well, when her comment was about percentages, not about absolutes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. @Calvin X Hobbes
    OT:

    What a Professor Can't Say

    Penn says Amy Wax will no longer teach required first-year courses after another widely criticized set of comments about race -- this time about black law students at the university -- comes to light.

    https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/03/15/penn-says-amy-wax-will-no-longer-teach-required-first-year-law-courses-after-more#disqus_thread

    QUOTE:
    The new controversy involves a video interview by Glenn Loury, professor of economics at Brown University, who has been critical of affirmative action. In the interview, Wax says, “I don’t think I’ve ever seen a black student graduate in the top quarter of the class, and rarely, rarely in the top half.”

    Wax added, “I can think of one or two students who've graduated in the top half of my required first-year course,” out of about 90 students per year. She also said that the University of Pennsylvania Law Review has a racial diversity mandate and suggested that some black students shouldn't go to college.
    ...
    Ruger in his letter says that it’s “imperative for me as dean to state that these claims are false: black students have graduated in the top of the class at Penn Law, and the Law Review does not have a diversity mandate. Rather, its editors are selected based on a competitive process.”

    Contrary to any suggestion otherwise, he continued, “black students at Penn Law are extremely successful, both inside and outside the classroom, in the job market and in their careers.”

    Ruger didn’t specify exactly how wrong Wax is, and a university spokesperson did not share specific information on law school performance by racial group. Both Ruger and the spokesperson cited Penn Law’s confidential grading policy, with Ruger asserting that Wax “is not free to transgress the policy that student grades are confidential, or to use her access to those Penn Law students who are required to be in her class to further her scholarly ends without students’ permission.”

    END QUOTE

    For numbers from 1992, see

    TABLE 5.1: DISTRIBUTION OF FIRST-YEAR GPAS AT “ELITE” SCHOOLS, SPRING1992,BY RACE

    http://www.adversity.net/Sander/Systemic_Analysis_FINAL.pdf

    See also TABLE 5.3 for the situation at lower-tier law schools.

    A reasonable estimate from those numbers is that 3.6% of black students at "elite" law schools rank in the top quarter. So maybe there are a few black law students at Penn in the top quarter.

    The consistent outcome across tiers is that about half of black law students rank in the bottom 10%.

    Also extremely interesting is

    Table 1: Predictions of first-year class rank in law school by prospective students at all law schools, BPS, 1991

    http://www.elsblog.org/the_empirical_legal_studi/2006/09/why_doesnt_the_.html#more

    0% of law students predict they'll rank in the bottom quarter in law school, only 1% predict they'll be in the next quartile. Hispanics and whites are very similar in their over-optimistic predictions (though almost certainly not in their actual results), but black predictions are even higher than white predictions. Imagine the surprise of black law students when they discover that coming up with snappy comebacks like "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit" is not what the law is all about.

    Cant find evidence of it anywhere but when I was at Berkeley Law school I saw an old article about the school going to no number grades.

    First they tried a system of low pass, pass, and honors, being bottom 10% middle 80% and top 10% reasoning employers would be best served by that. Affirmative action students filled the ranks of the low pass and were unemployable.

    They switched to a system of pass, honors, and high honors, being bottom 60% next 30% and top 10%, so no matter how bad you performed you were indistinguishable from someone in the top half of the class.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. @Verymuchalive
    Mounk's own website makes it plain.

    https://www.yaschamounk.com/about


    He is now a Lecturer on Government at Harvard University, a Senior Fellow in the Political Reform Program at New America, and Executive Director at the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change.</blockquote>

    Thanks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
    According to Wikipedia, the Tony Blair Institute for Political Change was set up in 2016. Strangely, it doesn't say where. I very much doubt it's Britain. I very much suspect it Mounk's private office at Harvard.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    What exactly is the end game for elites like this?

    Do they truly believe that turning Europe and the United States into some global bazaar is going to be good for them over the long run? Would any them willingly choose to live in Africa? I'm trying to put myself in their shoes to figure out what's in it for them.

    Yes, I can see how it works for them for a time. All these 3rd worlders will vote for their side and will push down those uppity working-class whites, but it's not as though it ends there. The 3rd worlders' numbers will grow and society will get quickly worse.

    At some point, the blacks and browns will want their own elites. At some point, the elites' gated communities will feel more like prisons than country clubs. At some point, elite or not, they will be the Boer farmer waiting for the next attack.

    Granted, that could take a couple of generations, but elites have children too.

    Granted, that could take a couple of generations, but elites have children too.

    In Europe, many do not in fact have children.

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/07/europes-childless-leaders.php

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    This is a very good point that never gets old or irrelevant. At the end of the day Angela Merkel is a straight-A student attempting a personal best on her little after-school "Germany" project, not a leader with skin in the game. As much as I resent Jared and Ivanka, they are part of solid proof that Trump really does care about what's in store for his country.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. @Fredrik
    No, not really. The European elites wants America. They want to have the same fun diverse atmosphere you guys have. We can all see that's delusional but that's not how typical Europeans see it. After all, if you're sold a convincing story by the US media then many people will believe it...

    No, not really. The European elites wants America. They want to have the same fun diverse atmosphere you guys have. We can all see that’s delusional but that’s not how typical Europeans see it. After all, if you’re sold a convincing story by the US media then many people will believe it…

    Hillary Clinton lives in a mostly White town called Chappaqua. Chappaqua is in the state of New York. The ruling class of the American Empire lives in mostly White towns, and the cities they live in have mostly White sections where they live as well.

    The ruling class — I will not call them elites — in Europe most likely live in mostly White areas, too.

    The ruling classes of European Christian nations are using the importation of racial diversity via mass immigration as a demographic weapon to destroy national sovereignty and cultural cohesion.

    Where does Theresa May and Angela Merkel live? I bet they don’t live cheek by jowl with the Third Worlders they are flooding into their nations.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. @rogue-one
    >Mass immigration has been weaponized by evil globalizers in order to destroy European Christian nations.

    Most fervent supporters of mass migration are priests & churches (at least in France).

    Pope Tango, the Catholic Corporation and the nation-wrecker figures in the Christian churches pushing mass immigration should be deported to the Congo or some other part of Africa.

    There are some Catholic Corporation dirtbags in the United States who I would love to deport to the Congo. All of the so-called “religious” frauds profiting from the REFUGEE OVERLOAD racket should be deported as well.

    The answer to mass immigration is mass deportation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. @Buffalo Joe
    Jolly, There are rumblings in California for a secession referendum. Liberals seceding from "Trump's America" is ok with them. I guess they would petition to rejoin the union if, let's say, Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren was elected POTUS.

    I think that the chances of Ms Harris or Ms Warren being elected to the Presidency if CA had withdrawn from the Union would be negligible, so I think that that eventuality is null and void.

    No, I think they would want to rejoin the Union after they experience a catastrophic earthquake, or after that big chunk of Hawai’i finally falls into the ocean and a tsunami 1000 feet high sweeps down upon the coast. Then they would be whining about how we were always the dearest of kindred, and how it would be heartless to not want to finance their recovery after alienating themselves from the Union.

    Sort of as if your significant other decided they no longer wanted to be linked with you so they could whore around and smoke crack, things that are ever so much more “self-actualizing” than staying in some boring relationship with a person committed to being a grown-up accepting of their responsibility to be mature not only for their own benefit, but also for the support and benefit of that significant other… only to have them come down with degenerative syphillis, and suffer the ravages of drug addiction, and then – and only then – to want you to save their asses.

    Not sure how they would handle having to deal with the international treaties necessary to address water access from the Union, or trade issues, or how to handle their chunk of the national obligations. Then there might be issues about free movement of people from CA to the Union, their joint border having become an international border at that point. And similar. The petulant pissiness reminds me of some lyrics from Frank Zappa’s Teenage Wind:

    Free is when you don’t have to
    Pay for nothing
    Or do nothing
    We want to be free
    Free as the wind

    Off-loading the BS from Californiah has a certain cachet, you must admit. If they want to commit suicide, well just make sure that the quarantine is of industrial strength. You want to be a Sanctuary State, well, knock yourselves out. Don’t be surprised if we don’t want to let all of that Vibrancy across the border, and we send them right back to you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. @International Jew

    Granted, that could take a couple of generations, but elites have children too.
     
    In Europe, many do not in fact have children.
    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/07/europes-childless-leaders.php

    This is a very good point that never gets old or irrelevant. At the end of the day Angela Merkel is a straight-A student attempting a personal best on her little after-school “Germany” project, not a leader with skin in the game. As much as I resent Jared and Ivanka, they are part of solid proof that Trump really does care about what’s in store for his country.

    Read More
    • Replies: @International Jew
    And on that note, I'd like to recognize the late great Antonin Scalia.
    https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/scalia-family.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. @YetAnotherAnon
    "At some point, the blacks and browns will want their own elites. At some point, the elites’ gated communities will feel more like prisons than country clubs. At some point, elite or not, they will be the Boer farmer waiting for the next attack."

    How's that working out in Brazil? Looks pretty comfortable for the elite. With all that money you can buy a lot of security.

    That's the future they've got in mind.

    Same thing in Mexico and many other parts of Latin America, but it’s a nervous sort of comfort. Houses are compounds with glass on top of blank walls, private neighborhood security patrols because you can’t trust the police, bodyguards for all family members, and places in Brazil where no one comes to a complete stop at red lights after dark. In the case of those countries I don’t think the elite like living that way, but that is how it ended up so they cope as well as possible. Our elites think that somehow it won’t end up that way here because they’ll do a better job of ruling the same human raw material. I think they’re going to be proven wrong.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. @Steve Sailer
    Thanks.

    According to Wikipedia, the Tony Blair Institute for Political Change was set up in 2016. Strangely, it doesn’t say where. I very much doubt it’s Britain. I very much suspect it Mounk’s private office at Harvard.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. OT OT OT

    https://tinyurl.com/y77n747x

    I didn’t know who William Kelley was when I found that book but, like millions of Americans, I knew a term he is credited with first committing to print. “If You’re Woke, You Dig It” read the headline of a 1962 Op-Ed that Kelley published in the New York Times, in which he pointed out that much of what passed for “beatnik” slang (“dig,” “chick,” “cool”) originated with African-Americans.

    Kelley first addressed these issues at length in his début novel, “A Different Drummer.” Published three weeks after that Times Op-Ed, when he was twenty-four, it promptly earned him comparisons to an impressive range of literary greats, from William Faulkner to Isaac Bashevis Singer to James Baldwin. It also got him talked about, together with the likes of Alvin Ailey and James Earl Jones, as among the most talented African-American artists of his generation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  146. @Lot
    Good find. If she gets the nomination I hope Trump or his superpacs turns this into well targeted web ads.

    Anti-white needs to be mainstreamed. That means at least some of us should hold back on the political incorrectness on social media EXCEPT this phrase, which should be used often.

    She is current one of several co front runners with a 10-18% estimated chances. Bernie is slightly ahead of the pack.

    I hope it is Bernie since he will force Trump to go center left on economic issues, and because he would be the best president of the Dem lot. Harris will just let Trump win on culture war issues.

    Good God. It’s looking like a Blue Tidal Wave making Nancy Palsi Speaker and Chucky Schemer Majority Leader. Trump is likely removed three or four months after that on a party line vote.

    Mouncks stuff is popular. That’s the center. Wanting your own White nation state is the weirdo position for fringes … White men, married White women. Trump riled up White women in a pussy hat fury plus non Whites and Harris might even be appointed by a Judge on the basis of “I say so” I would not bet on John Roberts stopping that.

    Only White dudes get screwed by mass third world immigration hence no stopping it for sixty years

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boethiuss


    Good God. It’s looking like a Blue Tidal Wave making Nancy Palsi Speaker and Chucky Schemer Majority Leader. Trump is likely removed three or four months after that on a party line vote.
     
    Maybe yes, maybe no. In the House at least, it's not looking good at the moment. We had a good few weeks a while ago, and I was hoping that we'd kick on from that but we certainly haven't, and it looks like we've regressed a little bit.

    Basically we need Trump to get to 45% approval. At that point, he's not really the key factor in the election any more. In that case, GOP-friendlier local/demographic factors would take over, and the GOP would hold the House. About a month ago, we were basically one step away from that and heading in the right direction. Now the situation has taken a turn for the worse.

    The reason I mention this is to say that we're not necessarily that far from where we need to be, but the bigger problem is that we don't have and ideas or playbook for how to get there. Specifically, the way to turn this around is, stylistically at least, contrary to a lot of people's inclinations. Ie, Trump needs to be more Presidential, less inflammatory, and needs to lay off Twitter. The Republicans in Congress and the executive branch need to take a higher profile and show more independence from Trump (though not opposition to him). We need to do this before everything defaults to campaign mode.

    Then we're going to have to go through the whole thing over again for the 2020 primary season. At that point, Trump is an albatross we need to get rid of, and that is the right time to do it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    What exactly is the end game for elites like this?

    Do they truly believe that turning Europe and the United States into some global bazaar is going to be good for them over the long run? Would any them willingly choose to live in Africa? I'm trying to put myself in their shoes to figure out what's in it for them.

    Yes, I can see how it works for them for a time. All these 3rd worlders will vote for their side and will push down those uppity working-class whites, but it's not as though it ends there. The 3rd worlders' numbers will grow and society will get quickly worse.

    At some point, the blacks and browns will want their own elites. At some point, the elites' gated communities will feel more like prisons than country clubs. At some point, elite or not, they will be the Boer farmer waiting for the next attack.

    Granted, that could take a couple of generations, but elites have children too.

    To me, this is the strongest argument that most pro-immigrant folks honestly believe the popular narrative that people are genetically interchangeable. I don’t believe there are any sinister plots afoot to eliminate whites or Western culture.

    In any discussion I have with pro-immigration folks, they generally will, at some point, argue that America ultimately assimilated the various European peoples, after some unpleasant adjustment period.

    That argument is in fact a good one given the assumption that all races are the same, and is also why mainstream conservatives _do_ generally look illogical. They try to argue that immigration is bad even though the people are, at their core, fully compatible with the West.

    The key to changing opinions on immigration is to implant the seed of doubt about racial interchangeability. This is extraordinarily difficult to do today, firstly as it is in actuality an unpleasant fact to moral people. For example, the idea took hold even in days past, when political correctness was not around. Compounding that, in today’s world, the idea is considered the most repugnant fact possible, and there is a lot of machinery in place to offer alternative explanations for the disparity we see in the world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross

    pro-immigrant folks honestly believe the popular narrative that people are genetically interchangeable
     
    How many of these people live or work with blacks on a regular basis, or marry them?
    Taleb said, you cannot persuade someone that they are wrong, only reality can.
    , @Forbes
    In other words, "pro-immigrant folks" believe the long-debunked blank slate theory of human development is true. Meanwhile, the 1960s war on poverty continues with dreary results. There's nothing so comforting as ignoring the evidence in front of your face, so as to convince yourself of the righteousness of your policy preference...

    It all depends what you consider illogical.
    , @AnotherDad

    To me, this is the strongest argument that most pro-immigrant folks honestly believe the popular narrative that people are genetically interchangeable. I don’t believe there are any sinister plots afoot to eliminate whites or Western culture.

    In any discussion I have with pro-immigration folks, they generally will, at some point, argue that America ultimately assimilated the various European peoples, after some unpleasant adjustment period.
     
    Couple points:

    1) This still isn't a good argument for immigration.
    Simple level: This whole line is a "yeah there's all this disruption and conflict, but it's going to work out in the end". The counter here is "uh, let's just not do it--and save ourselves the disruption."

    And as I've pointed out, this immigration forever!, "a nation of immigrants" thing is just fundamentally stupid/nasty/toxic mathematically.

    It means that whomever the current population of a nation is, their progeny's share of the future nation will be continually reduced and reduced. This must either continue--sub-replacement fertility--until the current owners genes are essentially extinguished or stops at some point in the future when the nation just becomes so godawful crowded and unpleasant that no else wants to come. Neither of these options is willing your descendants a pleasant future.

    So it doesn't even take any racial realism to realize what a disaster immigration forever! is. It just takes clear thought.

    2) America ultimately assimilated the various European peoples
    The key word there is "European". The example we have is assimilating European peoples into a particular sort of European nation. (For the record this was basically extending and entrenching the conquest of the land from the natives.)

    But we also have a very clear example of *not* successfully assimilating blacks. Of course this is why so much effort has been spent by leftists/Jews/big-staters demanding--against increasing implausibility as generations elapse since the civil rights revolution--that black dysfunction is categorically the fault of whites. But even with all that it remains the case that we haven't done it. That we don't know how to do it.

    In some sense this is just restating your prescription that we have to break the blank slate. However, the my point is that that break--at the functional, boots-on-the-ground level--is already there. If someone says "we assimilated Italians so ...", it's not necessary to make them an HBD believer. Even if miracle of miracles blacks really are just as innately capable, the fact remains that we as a society haven't been able to successfully integrate them to our Euro-American" norms, culture, economy. It's been intractable and highly unpleasant. Or simply put, we don't have to do an elaborate proof, the assimilation counter-example is staring everyone in the face. One just has to mention it.

    Of course, the reality is most people really aren't "blank slate" believers. Even the people who believe "yeah this assimilation can work", have sort of given American blacks some sort of affirmative action special casing and flat out don't consider them.

    ~

    The key to changing opinions on immigration is to implant the seed of doubt about racial interchangeability. This is extraordinarily difficult to do today, firstly as it is in actuality an unpleasant fact to moral people. For example, the idea took hold even in days past, when political correctness was not around
     
    I think you're retconning the pervasiveness of the racial-interchangeability notion a bit here. Most of the civil rights impetus wasn't real "racial interchangeability" belief, but simply "the right thing to do". People should be given a chance.

    Heck, i think that. But the point is "people who are here--who are Americans--should be given a chance". That's not the same as "let's invite everyone here and deal with their problems."
    , @ben tillman

    To me, this is the strongest argument that most pro-immigrant folks honestly believe the popular narrative that people are genetically interchangeable. I don’t believe there are any sinister plots afoot to eliminate whites or Western culture.
     
    If not, why would the governments of all Western countries be discriminating against the native whites and in favor of foreign non-whites. This is self-evidently an effort to eliminate whites, and it cannot have happened coincidentally.
    , @dfordoom

    I don’t believe there are any sinister plots afoot to eliminate whites or Western culture.
     
    Depends what you mean by western culture. The game plan is to have one single global culture, which will of course be American culture. Is modern American culture part of the western cultural tradition? I think that's debatable.

    The intention is that all non-American culture will be suppressed. It will be drowned in a tidal wave of American "culture."

    In the future everyone will see Black Panther, and they will all enjoy it. They'll have to, since there won't be any choice. Everyone will listen to Beyonce.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. OT:

    Presstitute (whom CNN neglects to identify, asks White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders if the Trump administration considers Vladimir Putin is “a friend or a foe.” Sanders refuses to call out the false dichotomy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Forbes
    DC gotcha game plays out in the media. News at 11.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/164113125

    Minor happening thread with good photos

    An African in Spain had a fatal heart attack while running away from police. He had been an unlicensed street vendor. His neighborhood has decided that he was murdered by racist cops and is taking it with the maturity we have come to expect from them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Eventually, Spain will have a popular anti immigration party, just like everywhere else in Europe.

    People said it would never happen in Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands etc.
    , @Fredrik
    The Spanish police is perfectly able to put down these things with exemplary brutality. They are very harsh against various regional nationalists so I'd expect them to handle the Africans the same way.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. @megabar
    To me, this is the strongest argument that most pro-immigrant folks honestly believe the popular narrative that people are genetically interchangeable. I don't believe there are any sinister plots afoot to eliminate whites or Western culture.

    In any discussion I have with pro-immigration folks, they generally will, at some point, argue that America ultimately assimilated the various European peoples, after some unpleasant adjustment period.

    That argument is in fact a good one given the assumption that all races are the same, and is also why mainstream conservatives _do_ generally look illogical. They try to argue that immigration is bad even though the people are, at their core, fully compatible with the West.

    The key to changing opinions on immigration is to implant the seed of doubt about racial interchangeability. This is extraordinarily difficult to do today, firstly as it is in actuality an unpleasant fact to moral people. For example, the idea took hold even in days past, when political correctness was not around. Compounding that, in today's world, the idea is considered the most repugnant fact possible, and there is a lot of machinery in place to offer alternative explanations for the disparity we see in the world.

    pro-immigrant folks honestly believe the popular narrative that people are genetically interchangeable

    How many of these people live or work with blacks on a regular basis, or marry them?
    Taleb said, you cannot persuade someone that they are wrong, only reality can.

    Read More
    • Replies: @megabar

    Taleb said, you cannot persuade someone that they are wrong, only reality can.
     
    While there is truth in what you're saying, I don't think it's the whole story.

    I think people can resist believing in "reality", as long as they have a narrative that adequately explains what they see. For example, the different mannerisms of blacks is easily explained by environmental arguments. This is even more true because of confirmation bias. That is, there are reserved, intelligent blacks, as well as unruly, stupid whites, and these examples are weighed more heavily in an egalitarian's mind since it confirms their belief.

    I think it possible to get people to re-evaluate their positions, but it must be done obliquely, and allow them to change their own mind over time.

    For example, if I were tasked to convince someone about race realism, I would start with relatively innocuous things. Most people intuitively believe that two geniuses are more likely to have smarter-than-average kids. If you can get them to agree that it's at least partly genetic (many will resist this step), then you've established that IQ is at least partly heritable.

    Next, it's _relatively_ easy to get agreement that blacks are, on average, faster than whites, and that this is a genetic difference. Sprinting records and and NFL defensive backs are reasonably convincing in this matter. This establishes that at least some genetic traits are distributed differently in different populations.

    Those two facts can introduce that seed of doubt that if sufficiently generalized, can cast doubt on the idea of racial interchangeability.

    Now, I don't mean to imply that it's easy to convince someone. It's not.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. @Anonymous
    I'm tired of reading that egregious falsehood - and tired of rebutting it.

    When we discuss immigration and the viability of the welfare state, only one metric matters, namely Schaeffer's Number, (see iSteve passim). Everything else you might read is pure bullshit.

    I'm sure Schaeffer's Number applies just as much in Germany as the USA.

    As I literally wrote ‘The German welfare state won’t survive the non-survival of the Germans.’

    Good concept though.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. @reiner Tor
    I wouldn't mind so much if our overlords were ruling us incompetently largely without our consent, cutting their own taxes, deregulating financial services which then lead to financial crises, starting adventures in third world countries leading to the countless deaths of third world civilians, loss of life for our own soldiers, and a waste of money, etc. etc.

    IF

    they didn't wish to swamp our countries with third world immigrants

    AND

    they also weren't blindly tottering towards nuclear war.

    These are my two requirements of any governments: work to preserve the ethnic composition of my country (if Wakanda is 100% Wakandan, keep it 100% Wakandan; if, however, the country in question is 0% Wakandan and, say, 100% white Swedish, keep it 0% Wakandan and 100% Swedish); and reduce the possibility of a nuclear war to a minimum.

    Well said Reiner.

    But honestly where we’re at now i’d settle for nuclear war. I don’t want to lose any of my kids, and i’d like to do another 25 or 30 myself if i can stay healthy, but i’d rather see American cities vaporized then this population replacement. We’d still have farmland, and shoulder to the wheel would rebuild a civilization. But when we’re replaced in our territory … we’re toast.

    Nothing could be worse than what’s going on with the exception of space aliens landing and using us for slaves or food. And anyone who could get here, could get superior robot labor or assemble proteins with much less time, energy and expense. So that ain’t happening.

    Nope, we’re facing the worse imaginable–the genocide of the West.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. @jim jones
    Tommy Robinson arrested at Speakers Corner:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/84l7h5/breaking_300_years_of_guaranteed_free_speech_at/

    Too bad ye Brits don’t have a Second Amendment to back up ‘free speech.’

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Too bad ye Brits don’t have a Second Amendment to back up ‘free speech.’
     
    The Brits don't have free speech to begin with. But then in practice neither do Americans. And the Second Amendment hasn't saved free speech in America.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. I’m sure the Bushes could find plenty of Change in the Global Sofa.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  155. @YetAnotherAnon
    And if, after a week or two when you'd not missed it or asked for it, would she suddenly come out with (especially if she's a tad peeved about something completely different):

    "Do you know where your camera is?"

    "No, I'm not sure I do - I think it was on my office shelf"

    "It doesn't belong there, so I've moved it. It's in the (wherever) if you want it."
     
    It's just the second X chromosome, God bless it!

    As the Emperor Augustus said - “If we could survive without a wife, citizens of Rome, all of us would do without that nuisance; but since nature has so decreed that we cannot manage comfortably with them, nor live in any way without them, we must plan for our lasting preservation rather than for our temporary pleasure.”

    Yet, Thank you and I love quote.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. @Tyrion 2

    I.e. he wants nationalism without, you know, actual nations
     
    Nothing about the quote you were responding to says what you think it says. If anything, it implies the opposite.

    Nothing about the quote you were responding to says what you think it says. If anything, it implies the opposite.

    Agree it’s not telling. I read the review of his book Steve linked to, and the piece Mounk had in the Times a week ago. But there isn’t any one paragraph you can pull that neatly captures where he’s at. There’s nothing complicated or insightful about what he says, there’s just a lot of blather to get there.

    Basically Mounk is against nationalism–unsurprisingly, he wasn’t actually part of the nation he grew up in (Germany). But he realizes that liberals are seeing a counter-reaction to their anti-nationalism and he’s worried about it. Mounk diagnoses some of this as essentially that liberals are post-nationalist, but actual people find globalism too empty and unsatisfying–too thin a gruel. So they are losing the battle to nationalists who actually offer something. But Mounk thinks those guys are bad, bad, bad. (And i can pretty solidly determine his intense distaste is to their actual nationalism not some other aspect of “right” politics, because it’s quite clear in the case of many of the groups–e.g. the National Front–that they aren’t necessarily laisse faire or against the welfare state.)

    So what Mounk urges is a sort of civic nationalism: Rally behind the flag guys! But not because the flag actually represents an actually existing particular people, culture, history, *nation* that you’re part of but because … well … um … there’s a big state (run by people like … Mounk!) which will help us all build a glorious, glorious future together–despite our diversity and not actually having anything in common but being policed by the same taxing authority.

    As i said … he wants nationalism without, you know, actual nations.

    (Note–if that’s the source of confusion–when i say “nation” i mean a nation. I don’t mean the super-state that controls a piece of territory–leftists are always for the super-state, that doesn’t mean they are for nations. No i mean the actual nation–the distinct people of a place with their history and culture.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2

    Basically Mounk is against nationalism
     
    I have read a bunch of his work now and he is explicitly for nationalism. He also gives all sorts of actual arguments for why a reasonably homogenous country is good. Equally, he gives all sorts of solid reasons for why diversity is detrimental.

    He does mouth the shibboleths of received opinion but makes absolutely no effort to convince anyone of them. He seems merely to be trying to convince his readers that he is a 'good' person so that they will listen to him on the important stuff. See above.

    He is the salesman (for nationalism) that calls up and emphasises how he hates cold calls and how the other cold callers are so rude....but do you want to buy the stuff he just so happens to have? It's completely different. It's inclusive and liberal and not at all like that stuff from Brexit, from the Front National and the AfD. Oh, and you have to accept it instead of post-nationalism, because post-nationalism is a disaster because of structured reasons A through Z.

    Oh, and hey, he can't be prejudiced. He's a Jew who grew up in Germany.

    =

    "Hey, I can't be homophobic, I used to watch lesbian porn as a teen"


    unsurprisingly, he wasn’t actually part of the nation he grew up in (Germany)
     
    He emphasises this a lot. It is probably mostly false. It is a persuasion technique. See above.

    Now I get why the commenters here don't get it. They are not the intended audience. Nonetheless, aren't any bright enough to be able to see the meaning behind Mounk's words?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. @Almost Missouri
    Foreign born Yascha Mounk, who lectures from Harvard at you little people, and builds on the work of foreign-born ivory towerists Jan-Werner Müller and Cas Mudde = "democracy".

    Citizens voting not to be ruled by foreigners and not to be replaced by invaders = "dangerous insurgent underminers".

    QED

    /sarc

    This is also known as "Why we can't have fair things."

    I’m enjoying your ‘Why we can’t have . . .’ posts.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. @AndrewR
    OT:

    Presstitute (whom CNN neglects to identify, asks White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders if the Trump administration considers Vladimir Putin is "a friend or a foe." Sanders refuses to call out the false dichotomy.

    DC gotcha game plays out in the media. News at 11.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Hilarious.

    Obviously, lying press gonna lie. But it would be nice to have a WHPS who didn't take the bait and who called out dishonesty for what it is.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. @megabar
    To me, this is the strongest argument that most pro-immigrant folks honestly believe the popular narrative that people are genetically interchangeable. I don't believe there are any sinister plots afoot to eliminate whites or Western culture.

    In any discussion I have with pro-immigration folks, they generally will, at some point, argue that America ultimately assimilated the various European peoples, after some unpleasant adjustment period.

    That argument is in fact a good one given the assumption that all races are the same, and is also why mainstream conservatives _do_ generally look illogical. They try to argue that immigration is bad even though the people are, at their core, fully compatible with the West.

    The key to changing opinions on immigration is to implant the seed of doubt about racial interchangeability. This is extraordinarily difficult to do today, firstly as it is in actuality an unpleasant fact to moral people. For example, the idea took hold even in days past, when political correctness was not around. Compounding that, in today's world, the idea is considered the most repugnant fact possible, and there is a lot of machinery in place to offer alternative explanations for the disparity we see in the world.

    In other words, “pro-immigrant folks” believe the long-debunked blank slate theory of human development is true. Meanwhile, the 1960s war on poverty continues with dreary results. There’s nothing so comforting as ignoring the evidence in front of your face, so as to convince yourself of the righteousness of your policy preference…

    It all depends what you consider illogical.

    Read More
    • Replies: @megabar
    It's just the way human beings are wired. None of us, including smart, logical people, will generally give ground on strongly held beliefs. I notice this in myself all the time, and I consider myself reasonably open-minded.

    Instead, opinion changes happen only in special cases; see my other response above on how I think this can actually happen.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. @Altai

    The fundamental problem today is that the anti-populists have become such extremist radicals on immigration policy.
     
    The rise of the internet and immigration flows from literally every corner of the Earth into the West along with laws like asylum and family reunification has simply allowed for the real possibility to kill off the lower classes once and for all. (Not sure the new lower classes are all that less hostile but history is full of examples of people bringing in people they haven't learned to hate yet to get rid of people they have a deep hatred of and then realising they really shouldn't have done that.)

    So essentially they have an actual chance to kill off their social inferiors. High house prices, low wages and constant pressure from immigrants leading to lower and lower fertility and longer generation times, even for the very poor. (And incredible demoralisation and learned helplessness) Meanwhile immigrants can be safely seen as tools or objects or pity, they have little impact or agency yet. (Or they are perceived as such)

    For example, in the UK some in the 'genocide the natives' camp are getting rather concerned that the poor Muslims who are becoming more a more influential constituency in the British Labour party might have an effect on it's longstanding anomaly of being very pro-zionist despite the views of members and politicians. When they helped to change the party policy on immigration by replacing working class Brits repulsed or demoralised by such policies that was fine, but now they're losing control, but they still haven't learned to hate British-Pakistanis with the white-hot intergenerational hate they reserve for the English working class. The social segregation is so complete that non-whites are still for a lot of older people this thing they see but don't socially interact with, like a tourist.

    The rise of the internet and immigration flows from literally every corner of the Earth into the West along with laws like asylum and family reunification has simply allowed for the real possibility to kill off the lower classes once and for all.

    It’s every bit as deadly for the middle and upper classes as well.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom


    has simply allowed for the real possibility to kill off the lower classes once and for all.
     
    It’s every bit as deadly for the middle and upper classes as well.
     
    It doesn't affect the upper classes at all. They're doing better than ever before.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. @AnotherDad

    Mounk is a leftist Jew, but his analysis of the current state of democracy is pretty accurate (and also in-line with many Chinese analysts, incidentally). The guy is clearly intelligent. I suggest people read him just to understand what the ideological battlefield is like.
     
    I tend to concur. I'm not sure he's super intelligent. I can't really tell, there isn't any high level insight here.

    But reading his stuff, Mounk comes across as way, way less stupid than the typical Jewish woman screeching about this stuff, or regurgitating 3rd grade leftist platitudes like "race does not exist".

    For all the stupid non-sequiturs, Mounk basically seems to understand that
    -- people like to be part of a community and democracy really (historically) has only worked very well in reasonably coherent "mono-ethnic" nations
    and
    --that populism is a perfectly understandable reaction to tedious elite anti-democratic "expertism" and mismanagement.

    The problem is it's precisely the Western elite's greatest, most disastrous mismanagement--immigration and "multicultralism"--that Mounk really wants to preserve:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/03/opinion/sunday/liberals-reclaim-nationalism.html

    So long as nationalism is associated with one particular ethnic or religious group, it will serve to exclude and disadvantage others. The only way to keep the destructive potential of nationalism in check is to fight for a society in which collective identity transcends ethnic and religious boundaries — one in which citizens from all religious or ethnic backgrounds are treated with the same respect as citizens from the majority group.
     
    I.e. he wants nationalism without, you know, actual nations.

    In other words the same old, same old Jewish demand:
    Every nation should be open and penetrable by Jews. It's just now called "democracy" or "liberalism" or "the modern liberal democratic order".

    There's nothing odd about this. You get a sense of this guy's alienated, screwed up background
    https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/books/how-yascha-mounk-grew-up-a-stranger-in-my-own-country.html
    Mounk never really belonged anywhere. And his own family was too broken\worthless to provide much grounding. So he chafes at all these gentile nations which--used to--function really well and provide national belonging and purpose. He wants them to all be multicultural ... even though he knows it doesn't work!!!

    But this Jewish attitude/prescription is just unnatural and toxic. Most people are not rootless cosmopolitans. The normal human desire is for a politics that provides security, community and prosperity for oneself and even more importantly for your children and descendants. Not for ripping apart your race, culture and nation to create an accommodating globo-dystopia for foreigners.

    In other words the same old, same old Jewish demand:

    Every nation should be open and penetrable by Jews. It’s just now called “democracy” or “liberalism” or “the modern liberal democratic order”.

    Today’s globalism is just Isaiah 60:11-12 dressed up in ideological mumbo-jumbo.

    11″Your gates will be open continually; They will not be closed day or night, So that men may bring to you the wealth of the nations, With their kings led in procession. 12″For the nation and the kingdom which will not serve you will perish, And the nations will be utterly ruined.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. @Tyrion 2
    Japan is going to need to do something about each generation being half the size of the preceding one at some point.

    Japanese subway people packers face a perilous future of unemployment.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. @Forbes
    DC gotcha game plays out in the media. News at 11.

    Hilarious.

    Obviously, lying press gonna lie. But it would be nice to have a WHPS who didn’t take the bait and who called out dishonesty for what it is.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. What I find most depressing about yet another Jew taking an incredibly hypocritical stand against the rabble for not wanting ethnic cleansing of their societies and daring to have some sense of self interest is that it is the Jews’ world and we just live in it. We merely get the honor of paying for our destruction and fighting their wars with dwindling opportunities to object without significant consequences for doing so.

    Astonishing that Whites created the modern world, built almost all (all?) the societies much of the world wants to live in then so meekly let their societies be taken from them and their descendants while virtue signalling how doing so is smart. Maybe this was inevitable once women got the right to vote.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  165. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    What exactly is the end game for elites like this?

    Do they truly believe that turning Europe and the United States into some global bazaar is going to be good for them over the long run? Would any them willingly choose to live in Africa? I'm trying to put myself in their shoes to figure out what's in it for them.

    Yes, I can see how it works for them for a time. All these 3rd worlders will vote for their side and will push down those uppity working-class whites, but it's not as though it ends there. The 3rd worlders' numbers will grow and society will get quickly worse.

    At some point, the blacks and browns will want their own elites. At some point, the elites' gated communities will feel more like prisons than country clubs. At some point, elite or not, they will be the Boer farmer waiting for the next attack.

    Granted, that could take a couple of generations, but elites have children too.

    What exactly is the end game for elites like this?

    Do they truly believe that turning Europe and the United States into some global bazaar is going to be good for them over the long run?

    Yes.

    For a significant part of their history, their EEA was a global bazaar. And they were the ones who set up Brazil in the first place.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. @Neoconned
    The reason these idiots will never be Trotsky is because Trotsky had been arrested, hassled beat up etc by the tsars police.

    This bimbos never done time in Siberia and probably couldn't handle two days straight without a fuckin yoga session or martini night in lower Manhattan.

    These idealogues are spoiled as shit

    This bimbos never done time in Siberia and probably couldn’t handle two days straight

    I think they might be able to handle it:

    First exile of Trotsky

    Being imprisoned and exiled from 1900 to 1902, Trotsky married and actively engaged in, both, self-education (which included reading the classics of Marxism) and journalistic work. Under the pseudonym “Antid Oto” Trotsky collaborated with the newspaper “Vostochnoye obozreniye” (Russian: Восточное обозрение, “The Eastern Review”), which published three dozen of his articles and essays, warmly accepted by the audience. During his first exile, the future Soviet People’s Commissar was involved in literary studies, was writing about general issues of sociology and creativity, plus – about the themes of Siberian peasant life. Traveling between the villages of Ust-Kut, Nizhne-Ilimsk and the city of Verkholensk, Trotsky came into contact with many former and future revolutionary personalities, including Moisei Uritsky and Felix Dzerzhinsky.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Siberia under the Tsar was almost a Kaczynskian paradise, especially compared to what came after. Lenin was allowed to have a shotgun in his cabin! The Decembrists were allowed to implement their political program! People were pretty much left alone after the requirement of being forced to leave the capital alone.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. @J.Ross

    pro-immigrant folks honestly believe the popular narrative that people are genetically interchangeable
     
    How many of these people live or work with blacks on a regular basis, or marry them?
    Taleb said, you cannot persuade someone that they are wrong, only reality can.

    Taleb said, you cannot persuade someone that they are wrong, only reality can.

    While there is truth in what you’re saying, I don’t think it’s the whole story.

    I think people can resist believing in “reality”, as long as they have a narrative that adequately explains what they see. For example, the different mannerisms of blacks is easily explained by environmental arguments. This is even more true because of confirmation bias. That is, there are reserved, intelligent blacks, as well as unruly, stupid whites, and these examples are weighed more heavily in an egalitarian’s mind since it confirms their belief.

    I think it possible to get people to re-evaluate their positions, but it must be done obliquely, and allow them to change their own mind over time.

    For example, if I were tasked to convince someone about race realism, I would start with relatively innocuous things. Most people intuitively believe that two geniuses are more likely to have smarter-than-average kids. If you can get them to agree that it’s at least partly genetic (many will resist this step), then you’ve established that IQ is at least partly heritable.

    Next, it’s _relatively_ easy to get agreement that blacks are, on average, faster than whites, and that this is a genetic difference. Sprinting records and and NFL defensive backs are reasonably convincing in this matter. This establishes that at least some genetic traits are distributed differently in different populations.

    Those two facts can introduce that seed of doubt that if sufficiently generalized, can cast doubt on the idea of racial interchangeability.

    Now, I don’t mean to imply that it’s easy to convince someone. It’s not.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman

    I think people can resist believing in “reality”, as long as they have a narrative that adequately explains what they see. For example, the different mannerisms of blacks is easily explained by environmental arguments.
     
    No, it's not. No environmental explanation has ever been advanced, nor is one imaginable.

    Perhaps it would be true to say that it can be attributed to "environment", and people won't actually think about how stupid such a claim is.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. @eah
    "The People"

    Ismael Chamu: “F— White People,” “Kill Cops”, “Class War” -- @KamalaHarris: "People like Ismael represent our future"

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DYVP5goXUAAtDv5.jpg

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DYVP6bbX4AINKJp.jpg

    F*** the whites. Class war now. LOL

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. @Forbes
    In other words, "pro-immigrant folks" believe the long-debunked blank slate theory of human development is true. Meanwhile, the 1960s war on poverty continues with dreary results. There's nothing so comforting as ignoring the evidence in front of your face, so as to convince yourself of the righteousness of your policy preference...

    It all depends what you consider illogical.

    It’s just the way human beings are wired. None of us, including smart, logical people, will generally give ground on strongly held beliefs. I notice this in myself all the time, and I consider myself reasonably open-minded.

    Instead, opinion changes happen only in special cases; see my other response above on how I think this can actually happen.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. @JollyOldSoul
    "At first, populist movements often present themselves as deeply, even radically, democratic. The 2016 Brexit referendum is a case in point. Inviting citizens to vote on such an enormous policy change was a simple enactment of direct democracy."

    There is nothing "radically democratic" about a plebiscite. That is the simplest and most basic form of democracy of all. Representative government is the perversion of democracy (though generally a useful one).

    Direct democracy has its problems. It's hard to account for random, contradictory expressions of the people's will, and it can be hard at times to even settle on what the people should be voting on. But on major issues that can effect irreversible changes to a nation (such as immigration or accession to a new union, such as the EU) it can be absolutely essential.

    The establishment's real objection to direct democracy is that it undermines their ability to divide and conquer, and it makes it harder for them to buy off the people in power. There is no way to do an end run around the will of the people by buying out the leaders who are supposed to represent them.

    There is nothing “radically democratic” about a plebiscite. That is the simplest and most basic form of democracy of all.

    The most basic form of democracy is unanimous consent. Voting is a far-from-ideal concession to the fact that the attainment of unanimous consent is difficult and time-consuming.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. @J.Ross
    That's true for Tommy Robinson (who literally works directly for Jews and begged off criticism of Israel in a twitter conversation by telling his conversation partner "they're cutting my checks"). But Robinson lives in England, where there is no freedom of speech, and the police will not protect you from leftist and Islamist violence. After all the money spent by AIPAC and all the threats launched by the ADL/SPLC, polite discussion is a numbers game, and Americans coming to this issue without British tyranny will not be able to avoid the consistent Israeli role in energetically pushing monumentally disasterous policies using the language of hatred and extermination. It is generous and religiously apt for the Israelites to provide us with an identity of exterminationists no matter what our actual opinions are (and after all our support), but an increasing number of Americans are seeing that you can disapprove of tribalist hypocrites (sovereignty for Israel but not anybody else) while embracing Israelis like Netanyahu and befriending Israel.

    I admire Tommy Robinson, but like a lot of earnest nationalists, he’s naive. Poor guy’s out there on the front lines getting his head knocked around–by street thug leftists, muslims and the British establishment–and he doesn’t even realize the people who are out to get him are the same people cutting his checks…and that idiot Gavin McInnes’s too. Now, these jews at least allow some of their hired goys to think nationalist thoughts so long as their targets are muslims. But none are allowed to mention the larger jewish hypocrisy or else the direct deposits stop showing up in their checking accounts.

    Here are some of Tommy’s latest exploits, which you’ve probably already seen.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5777429/ex-edl-tommy-robinson-attacked-london-mcdonalds/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. @Malcolm X-Lax
    Penn could always release the data and prove she's wrong. But they won't.

    Their problem is the data won’t show she is wrong, that’s why. Sander had to fight the California Bar Association for a decade to get them to release the bar examination pass data by race. They claimed privacy rights despite the fact that Sander always said the individual data wouldn’t be released and kept anonymous. The state SC ruled in his favor, but as far as I know they still haven’t given him the data.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. @Thulean Friend

    The fundamental problem today is that the anti-populists have become such extremist radicals on immigration policy.
     
    Don't be a coward, Steve. That is like using "globalists". Mounk is driven by the same desire as many other "liberal" diaspora Jews: ethnic interest.

    Fundamentally, he wants to live in a society where he is not the outsider, because that goes against his ethnic interest. In a society where everyone is the outsider is far more preferable to his ethnic interests. At the same time, he wants Israel to remain ethnically Jewish.

    It is true that there are also white liberals who hold these beliefs, but you should always
    look at people in their home country. The amount of open borders liberal Jews in Israel is a tiny fringe, a true reflection of their genuine liberalism. In the diaspora, they don't identify with the native majority, so their politics will naturally shift in a direction to maximise suppression of native interests.

    White people is the only group which have large amounts of these types of beliefs among the native population when we are in a majority. Looking at other groups - in their own home country - you don't see this at all. Certainly not among Jews. Diaspora "liberal" Jews would be ardent nationalists in Israel. The mistake white people make is that many assume other peoples are as invested in political principles as they are. Whereas most people are just interested in their own ethnic interests and those will shift depending upon if you're in the majority or in the minority.

    Fundamentally, he wants to live in a society where he is not the outsider, because that goes against his ethnic interest. In a society where everyone is the outsider is far more preferable to his ethnic interests. At the same time, he wants Israel to remain ethnically Jewish.

    Your first two sentences are contradicted by your third. But the contradiction is his.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. …builds on the important work of scholars like Jan-Werner Müller and Cas Mudde.

    Müller’s only Wikipedia pages are in German, French, and Spanish. How important can he be? Charles Murray rates 11 languages. Psy’s pages are in 81 tongues, Elizabeth II’s in 156.

    Mudde and his brother Tim must be the Dutch counterpart of the Hitchenses.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  175. @Whiskey
    Good God. It's looking like a Blue Tidal Wave making Nancy Palsi Speaker and Chucky Schemer Majority Leader. Trump is likely removed three or four months after that on a party line vote.

    Mouncks stuff is popular. That's the center. Wanting your own White nation state is the weirdo position for fringes ... White men, married White women. Trump riled up White women in a pussy hat fury plus non Whites and Harris might even be appointed by a Judge on the basis of "I say so" I would not bet on John Roberts stopping that.

    Only White dudes get screwed by mass third world immigration hence no stopping it for sixty years

    Good God. It’s looking like a Blue Tidal Wave making Nancy Palsi Speaker and Chucky Schemer Majority Leader. Trump is likely removed three or four months after that on a party line vote.

    Maybe yes, maybe no. In the House at least, it’s not looking good at the moment. We had a good few weeks a while ago, and I was hoping that we’d kick on from that but we certainly haven’t, and it looks like we’ve regressed a little bit.

    Basically we need Trump to get to 45% approval. At that point, he’s not really the key factor in the election any more. In that case, GOP-friendlier local/demographic factors would take over, and the GOP would hold the House. About a month ago, we were basically one step away from that and heading in the right direction. Now the situation has taken a turn for the worse.

    The reason I mention this is to say that we’re not necessarily that far from where we need to be, but the bigger problem is that we don’t have and ideas or playbook for how to get there. Specifically, the way to turn this around is, stylistically at least, contrary to a lot of people’s inclinations. Ie, Trump needs to be more Presidential, less inflammatory, and needs to lay off Twitter. The Republicans in Congress and the executive branch need to take a higher profile and show more independence from Trump (though not opposition to him). We need to do this before everything defaults to campaign mode.

    Then we’re going to have to go through the whole thing over again for the 2020 primary season. At that point, Trump is an albatross we need to get rid of, and that is the right time to do it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross

    At that point, Trump is an albatross we need to get rid of
     
    I'm sorry, have you unearthed a previously-unknown store of Republican candidates who are not traitors that make the Democrats look good?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. As Godfrey Elfwick said, “I’m all for democracy, but I’m not sure people should be allowed to make their own choices if they are wrong.”

    Also, “Is free speech worth the price of people being able to say whatever they like?”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  177. @Corvinus
    "What exactly is the end game for elites like this?"

    And we have reached critical mass for the false narrative--"elites"--however defined nowadays--have been plotting and scheming to destroy everything wholesome and good. And the general public is too stupid to realize it, because they have been duped wholesale by the media and institutions.

    "Do they truly believe that turning Europe and the United States into some global bazaar is going to be good for them over the long run?"

    IF that was the plan of elites.

    "Yes, I can see how it works for them for a time. All these 3rd worlders will vote for their side and will push down those uppity working-class whites, but it’s not as though it ends there."

    Right, because white elites seek to denigrate their own kind. It's in their DNA. And, of course, they teach their offspring the ways on how to stick it to Whitey and normies. It really makes for great entertainment on their part, right?

    "At some point, the blacks and browns will want their own elites. At some point, the elites’ gated communities will feel more like prisons than country clubs. At some point, elite or not, they will be the Boer farmer waiting for the next attack."

    Just change your name to Chicken Little and be done with it already.

    Not this time, Corny. I have a friend who is from South Africa. His parents are Boer farmers. They have neighbors who have been attacked.

    You strike me as an unserious person, someone who never got into a school yard fight. I can only hope that you really are a troll, that you are, in fact, fighting for your people’s interest. Otherwise, you are a fool and a wimp, and I can’t wait for your kind to be culled from the herd.

    Keep up the good work, Corny. You’ve taught me a lot. You’ve taught me that debating with the other side doesn’t work. Push back on the ground, that works. Quietly, slowly, but push back. For that, I am very thankful.

    I will never respond to you again.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Not this time, Corny. I have a friend who is from South Africa. His parents are Boer farmers. They have neighbors who have been attacked."

    Which is both tragic and ironic. Tragic, in that these white farmers ought not be subject to violent reprisals for past conduct by their ancestors. Ironic, considering that there are a number of white South Africans, similar to yourself, that are open to armed conflict--they cannot wait to get their gun and start shooting at people. Yet, when their brethren is attacked, they verbally lash out rather than actually engage. It's more armchair warrior than anything else.

    "You strike me as an unserious person, someone who never got into a school yard fight."

    On the contrary, I am VERY serious regarding my concerns about my nation, and the direction it is headed. And I got into a fair number of scrapes back in my youth in the glorious 70's and 80's.

    "I can only hope that you really are a troll, that you are, in fact, fighting for your people’s interest."

    Hardly a troll. I respond rhetoric with rhetoric, dialectic with dialectic.

    "Otherwise, you are a fool and a wimp, and I can’t wait for your kind to be culled from the herd."

    Your statement is other than surprising, as it appears you truly do not appreciate life and the living.

    "You’ve taught me a lot. You’ve taught me that debating with the other side doesn’t work."

    Exactly how the Coalition of the Fringes generally think and act. Our nation has been and will continue to be based on open dialogue, although in these times it certainly is much more taxing. But normies and Generation Z give me hope.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. @Hippopotamusdrome


    This bimbos never done time in Siberia and probably couldn’t handle two days straight

     

    I think they might be able to handle it:


    First exile of Trotsky
    ...
    Being imprisoned and exiled from 1900 to 1902, Trotsky married and actively engaged in, both, self-education (which included reading the classics of Marxism) and journalistic work. Under the pseudonym "Antid Oto" Trotsky collaborated with the newspaper "Vostochnoye obozreniye" (Russian: Восточное обозрение, "The Eastern Review"), which published three dozen of his articles and essays, warmly accepted by the audience. During his first exile, the future Soviet People's Commissar was involved in literary studies, was writing about general issues of sociology and creativity, plus - about the themes of Siberian peasant life. Traveling between the villages of Ust-Kut, Nizhne-Ilimsk and the city of Verkholensk, Trotsky came into contact with many former and future revolutionary personalities, including Moisei Uritsky and Felix Dzerzhinsky.

     

    Siberia under the Tsar was almost a Kaczynskian paradise, especially compared to what came after. Lenin was allowed to have a shotgun in his cabin! The Decembrists were allowed to implement their political program! People were pretty much left alone after the requirement of being forced to leave the capital alone.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. @Boethiuss


    Good God. It’s looking like a Blue Tidal Wave making Nancy Palsi Speaker and Chucky Schemer Majority Leader. Trump is likely removed three or four months after that on a party line vote.
     
    Maybe yes, maybe no. In the House at least, it's not looking good at the moment. We had a good few weeks a while ago, and I was hoping that we'd kick on from that but we certainly haven't, and it looks like we've regressed a little bit.

    Basically we need Trump to get to 45% approval. At that point, he's not really the key factor in the election any more. In that case, GOP-friendlier local/demographic factors would take over, and the GOP would hold the House. About a month ago, we were basically one step away from that and heading in the right direction. Now the situation has taken a turn for the worse.

    The reason I mention this is to say that we're not necessarily that far from where we need to be, but the bigger problem is that we don't have and ideas or playbook for how to get there. Specifically, the way to turn this around is, stylistically at least, contrary to a lot of people's inclinations. Ie, Trump needs to be more Presidential, less inflammatory, and needs to lay off Twitter. The Republicans in Congress and the executive branch need to take a higher profile and show more independence from Trump (though not opposition to him). We need to do this before everything defaults to campaign mode.

    Then we're going to have to go through the whole thing over again for the 2020 primary season. At that point, Trump is an albatross we need to get rid of, and that is the right time to do it.

    At that point, Trump is an albatross we need to get rid of

    I’m sorry, have you unearthed a previously-unknown store of Republican candidates who are not traitors that make the Democrats look good?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boethiuss
    Any of them really. The GOP has for the most part found the right policy mix, at least until the necessity for cutting spending rises to the forefront again. Given where we are regarding the GOP's policies and the consequences of them that we've seen so far, we should be doing much better than we are.

    This isn't to say that Trump is doing everything wrong. In fact, I think he's made a couple of canny moves recently. Specifically, refusing the D offers of wall funding for DACA legalization (I think Kaus linked to some thoughts behind that). But even as that was the best alternative, the overall strategic direction is bad for us, in such a way that we have to outmaneuver the other guys tactically just to tread water.

    No, the problem is Trump himself and his propensity to create cacophony in the public sphere. There's a lot of people, not all of them Left or pro-immigration or Democrat or what have you, who just don't like that and are going to vote against Trump or Republicans because of that. But, there were also a strong number of weakly motivated liberals who saw the whole spectacle and were turned off the whole thing and didn't vote, thereby creating an advantage for the GOP.

    With the PA18 thing in now, it should be apparent that's not working any more. Their side is motivated to cut through the crap, crawl through broken glass to vote against Trump and anybody in his party. Our side is feeling a little complacent, and a little turned off, and feel the need to vote against Hillary any more because she's gone.

    That means we have to dial down Trump's twitter, and dial up the economy, immigration and our demographic advantages in the places where we have them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. To me, this is the strongest argument that most pro-immigrant folks honestly believe the popular narrative that people are genetically interchangeable. I don’t believe there are any sinister plots afoot to eliminate whites or Western culture.

    Useful idiots don’t obviate the possibility of sinister plotters. That said, I think there’s too much self-deception in Jewish culture to call it “sinister.” Supremacist and genocidally negligent, sure.

    That argument is in fact a good one given the assumption that all races are the same, and is also why mainstream conservatives _do_ generally look illogical. They try to argue that immigration is bad even though the people are, at their core, fully compatible with the West.

    The key to changing opinions on immigration is to implant the seed of doubt about racial interchangeability. This is extraordinarily difficult to do today, firstly as it is in actuality an unpleasant fact to moral people. For example, the idea took hold even in days past, when political correctness was not around. Compounding that, in today’s world, the idea is considered the most repugnant fact possible, and there is a lot of machinery in place to offer alternative explanations for the disparity we see in the world.

    I skip all that bullshit and go right for the throat: Israel’s ethnonationalist, Jews are smart, ergo their way’s better.

    Israel and the Zionists and their lock on the US establishment put the lie to all of the left’s bullshit.

    Let them do all the extraordinarily difficult work clawing back from that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @megabar

    Useful idiots don’t obviate the possibility of sinister plotters
     
    That's true -- that's why I said "most people". If you want to stop mass immigration, you'll need to convince "most people" (i.e. the voters) that there are in fact differences between the races, and if they want to continue to live in a place like the US, we need to change some things.

    I skip all that bullshit and go right for the throat
     
    This approach is generally doomed to fail. In fact, to change someone's mind on a strongly held position, you can not attack it. You will only strengthen their position, and cause them to further dislike your view.

    If I were an egalitarian, I would say your argument is meaningless -- it only proves that Israel is making the wrong choice in excluding immigrants that would help it grow.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. @J.Ross

    At that point, Trump is an albatross we need to get rid of
     
    I'm sorry, have you unearthed a previously-unknown store of Republican candidates who are not traitors that make the Democrats look good?

    Any of them really. The GOP has for the most part found the right policy mix, at least until the necessity for cutting spending rises to the forefront again. Given where we are regarding the GOP’s policies and the consequences of them that we’ve seen so far, we should be doing much better than we are.

    This isn’t to say that Trump is doing everything wrong. In fact, I think he’s made a couple of canny moves recently. Specifically, refusing the D offers of wall funding for DACA legalization (I think Kaus linked to some thoughts behind that). But even as that was the best alternative, the overall strategic direction is bad for us, in such a way that we have to outmaneuver the other guys tactically just to tread water.

    No, the problem is Trump himself and his propensity to create cacophony in the public sphere. There’s a lot of people, not all of them Left or pro-immigration or Democrat or what have you, who just don’t like that and are going to vote against Trump or Republicans because of that. But, there were also a strong number of weakly motivated liberals who saw the whole spectacle and were turned off the whole thing and didn’t vote, thereby creating an advantage for the GOP.

    With the PA18 thing in now, it should be apparent that’s not working any more. Their side is motivated to cut through the crap, crawl through broken glass to vote against Trump and anybody in his party. Our side is feeling a little complacent, and a little turned off, and feel the need to vote against Hillary any more because she’s gone.

    That means we have to dial down Trump’s twitter, and dial up the economy, immigration and our demographic advantages in the places where we have them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    >to create cacophony in the public sphere.
    Oh so you don't understand what he's doing, and expect the Republicans to win while playing by the establishment's rules, which have recently been amended to specify white exclusion. Maybe Anderson Voodoo will be nice to us if we raise our hands and wait politely to be called on.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. @AndrewR
    Switching from irony [most of your post] to non-irony [your last paragraph] without any explicit indication is poor writing. It forces the reader to unnecessarily expend mental energy to realize that you have completely changed gears. "But seriously, the fundamental..." at the beginning of your final paragraph would have been much better.

    Get yer own blog.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. @megabar
    To me, this is the strongest argument that most pro-immigrant folks honestly believe the popular narrative that people are genetically interchangeable. I don't believe there are any sinister plots afoot to eliminate whites or Western culture.

    In any discussion I have with pro-immigration folks, they generally will, at some point, argue that America ultimately assimilated the various European peoples, after some unpleasant adjustment period.

    That argument is in fact a good one given the assumption that all races are the same, and is also why mainstream conservatives _do_ generally look illogical. They try to argue that immigration is bad even though the people are, at their core, fully compatible with the West.

    The key to changing opinions on immigration is to implant the seed of doubt about racial interchangeability. This is extraordinarily difficult to do today, firstly as it is in actuality an unpleasant fact to moral people. For example, the idea took hold even in days past, when political correctness was not around. Compounding that, in today's world, the idea is considered the most repugnant fact possible, and there is a lot of machinery in place to offer alternative explanations for the disparity we see in the world.

    To me, this is the strongest argument that most pro-immigrant folks honestly believe the popular narrative that people are genetically interchangeable. I don’t believe there are any sinister plots afoot to eliminate whites or Western culture.

    In any discussion I have with pro-immigration folks, they generally will, at some point, argue that America ultimately assimilated the various European peoples, after some unpleasant adjustment period.

    Couple points:

    1) This still isn’t a good argument for immigration.
    Simple level: This whole line is a “yeah there’s all this disruption and conflict, but it’s going to work out in the end”. The counter here is “uh, let’s just not do it–and save ourselves the disruption.”

    And as I’ve pointed out, this immigration forever!, “a nation of immigrants” thing is just fundamentally stupid/nasty/toxic mathematically.

    It means that whomever the current population of a nation is, their progeny’s share of the future nation will be continually reduced and reduced. This must either continue–sub-replacement fertility–until the current owners genes are essentially extinguished or stops at some point in the future when the nation just becomes so godawful crowded and unpleasant that no else wants to come. Neither of these options is willing your descendants a pleasant future.

    So it doesn’t even take any racial realism to realize what a disaster immigration forever! is. It just takes clear thought.

    2) America ultimately assimilated the various European peoples
    The key word there is “European”. The example we have is assimilating European peoples into a particular sort of European nation. (For the record this was basically extending and entrenching the conquest of the land from the natives.)

    But we also have a very clear example of *not* successfully assimilating blacks. Of course this is why so much effort has been spent by leftists/Jews/big-staters demanding–against increasing implausibility as generations elapse since the civil rights revolution–that black dysfunction is categorically the fault of whites. But even with all that it remains the case that we haven’t done it. That we don’t know how to do it.

    In some sense this is just restating your prescription that we have to break the blank slate. However, the my point is that that break–at the functional, boots-on-the-ground level–is already there. If someone says “we assimilated Italians so …”, it’s not necessary to make them an HBD believer. Even if miracle of miracles blacks really are just as innately capable, the fact remains that we as a society haven’t been able to successfully integrate them to our Euro-American” norms, culture, economy. It’s been intractable and highly unpleasant. Or simply put, we don’t have to do an elaborate proof, the assimilation counter-example is staring everyone in the face. One just has to mention it.

    Of course, the reality is most people really aren’t “blank slate” believers. Even the people who believe “yeah this assimilation can work”, have sort of given American blacks some sort of affirmative action special casing and flat out don’t consider them.

    ~

    The key to changing opinions on immigration is to implant the seed of doubt about racial interchangeability. This is extraordinarily difficult to do today, firstly as it is in actuality an unpleasant fact to moral people. For example, the idea took hold even in days past, when political correctness was not around

    I think you’re retconning the pervasiveness of the racial-interchangeability notion a bit here. Most of the civil rights impetus wasn’t real “racial interchangeability” belief, but simply “the right thing to do”. People should be given a chance.

    Heck, i think that. But the point is “people who are here–who are Americans–should be given a chance”. That’s not the same as “let’s invite everyone here and deal with their problems.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @megabar
    I'm going to play devil's advocate here and argue for immigration as an egalitarian would, but keep in mind I'm firmly anti-immigration from people that won't do well in modern society.

    1) This still isn’t a good argument for immigration. Simple level: This whole line is a “yeah there’s all this disruption and conflict, but it’s going to work out in the end”. The counter here is “uh, let’s just not do it–and save ourselves the disruption.”
     
    A temporary discomfort is worth it if there's true long term gain. Would the US be better if you removed all of its many Germanic immigrants?

    It means that whomever the current population of a nation is, their progeny’s share of the future nation will be continually reduced and reduced.
     
    First, if the newcomers are interchangeable with you, then their fertility rates will eventually equal yours. That is, the population will eventually stabilize, and no one is extinguished. Furthermore, if the share of genes of your ancestors is ultimately lower than it would have been without immigration, and the new people's genes are every bit as good, then who really cares?

    2) America ultimately assimilated the various European peoples
    The key word there is “European”
     
    Well, yeah. But until you can convince them that the different races are in fact different, the distinction between European and African is meaningless. It all comes back to race realism.

    When you point out that blacks have not assimilated, you have not attacked their position. They believe that blacks lag only because of racism and oppression. If anything, they will argue that it's just people like you who cause the problem. That we know _how_ to do it, but there are too many racists.

    I think you’re retconning the pervasiveness of the racial-interchangeability notion
     
    I'm no historian, so perhaps you're right. But my understanding is that even then, no one had any idea that the US demographics would change so dramatically. In order to welcome a minority white nation, which we obviously face now, I think you have to be a racial egalitarian.
    , @Corvinus
    "The key word there is “European”. The example we have is assimilating European peoples into a particular sort of European nation."

    You conveniently forget that the nativists of the late 1800's believed that certain groups of people, in particular Eastern and Southern Europeans, were other than desirable and thus lacked the "proper traits" to assimilate. Besides, the United States is a mutt nation--it contains a wide range of races and ethnic groups. It was founded by the English, with other Europeans adding their contributions along the way. But there had remained this English vs. the non-English mentality. Yes, they were Europeans, and they were united in a sense against non-whites, but when it came down to assimilating, the strong ethnic beliefs remained--the English did not want to mix with the non-English.

    "Even if miracle of miracles blacks really are just as innately capable, the fact remains that we as a society haven’t been able to successfully integrate them to our Euro-American” norms, culture, economy."

    Actually, it is American norms, culture, and economy. Drop the Euro.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. @Boethiuss
    Any of them really. The GOP has for the most part found the right policy mix, at least until the necessity for cutting spending rises to the forefront again. Given where we are regarding the GOP's policies and the consequences of them that we've seen so far, we should be doing much better than we are.

    This isn't to say that Trump is doing everything wrong. In fact, I think he's made a couple of canny moves recently. Specifically, refusing the D offers of wall funding for DACA legalization (I think Kaus linked to some thoughts behind that). But even as that was the best alternative, the overall strategic direction is bad for us, in such a way that we have to outmaneuver the other guys tactically just to tread water.

    No, the problem is Trump himself and his propensity to create cacophony in the public sphere. There's a lot of people, not all of them Left or pro-immigration or Democrat or what have you, who just don't like that and are going to vote against Trump or Republicans because of that. But, there were also a strong number of weakly motivated liberals who saw the whole spectacle and were turned off the whole thing and didn't vote, thereby creating an advantage for the GOP.

    With the PA18 thing in now, it should be apparent that's not working any more. Their side is motivated to cut through the crap, crawl through broken glass to vote against Trump and anybody in his party. Our side is feeling a little complacent, and a little turned off, and feel the need to vote against Hillary any more because she's gone.

    That means we have to dial down Trump's twitter, and dial up the economy, immigration and our demographic advantages in the places where we have them.

    >to create cacophony in the public sphere.
    Oh so you don’t understand what he’s doing, and expect the Republicans to win while playing by the establishment’s rules, which have recently been amended to specify white exclusion. Maybe Anderson Voodoo will be nice to us if we raise our hands and wait politely to be called on.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boethiuss

    Oh so you don’t understand what he’s doing, and expect the Republicans to win while playing by the establishment’s rules, which have recently been amended to specify white exclusion. Maybe Anderson Voodoo will be nice to us if we raise our hands and wait politely to be called on.
     
    Yeah, yeah, yeah, this is exactly what's not working for us right now.

    This is not October 2016 any more, and people don't feel the need to support Trump for the sake of keeping Hillary out of the White House. Western PA was Ground Zero for the propensity for previously nonpartisan or Democratic-leaning white voters to come out in droves for Trump, and we just lost a special election there (with a candidate who defined himself as supporting Trump btw).

    So let's cut the crap and the tough-sounding bullshit, and take a look outside to see what's actually going on out there. And then let's do what it actually takes to win instead of what sounds good on iSteve.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. @J.Ross
    This is a very good point that never gets old or irrelevant. At the end of the day Angela Merkel is a straight-A student attempting a personal best on her little after-school "Germany" project, not a leader with skin in the game. As much as I resent Jared and Ivanka, they are part of solid proof that Trump really does care about what's in store for his country.

    And on that note, I’d like to recognize the late great Antonin Scalia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    I met some of the Scalias in the 1980s when I believe this photo was taken. Besides that there were a lot of them, it was striking how fair so many of them were given their Dad's Sicilian heritage. Most of them could have passed for Holsteiners.
    , @J.Ross
    One day we'll enforce the law against murder in this country.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. @J.Ross
    http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/164113125

    Minor happening thread with good photos

    An African in Spain had a fatal heart attack while running away from police. He had been an unlicensed street vendor. His neighborhood has decided that he was murdered by racist cops and is taking it with the maturity we have come to expect from them.

    Eventually, Spain will have a popular anti immigration party, just like everywhere else in Europe.

    People said it would never happen in Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands etc.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    What exactly is the end game for elites like this?

    Do they truly believe that turning Europe and the United States into some global bazaar is going to be good for them over the long run? Would any them willingly choose to live in Africa? I'm trying to put myself in their shoes to figure out what's in it for them.

    Yes, I can see how it works for them for a time. All these 3rd worlders will vote for their side and will push down those uppity working-class whites, but it's not as though it ends there. The 3rd worlders' numbers will grow and society will get quickly worse.

    At some point, the blacks and browns will want their own elites. At some point, the elites' gated communities will feel more like prisons than country clubs. At some point, elite or not, they will be the Boer farmer waiting for the next attack.

    Granted, that could take a couple of generations, but elites have children too.

    What exactly is the end game for elites like this?

    To them immigrants are an abstract concept. The elites have picked up “sixties values” on universities and what not. They have been everything the left hates if you look at this economicaly: A plundering upper class that resembles a locust swarm, requiring the nations that they live to adapt to their wishes or move to another. Just look at the amount of jobs moved to China. Even the old nobility in Europe, for all their faults, did not resemble a locust swarm.

    So how would one reconcile being such an ugly and greedy capitalist (*) with your liberal beliefs? You double down on the non-economical issues: Racism, LGBT issues, trans rights. These elites are rich enough to not live with immigrants so to them it is an abstract issue that fits that list.

    (*) I don’t consider capitalism bad, but also not good. It basically is a system – or maybe even the absence of any system at all – that allows for all humans to trade, buy and produce as they please. Hence it exaggerates all cultural traits or lack thereof. The deep issue, I think, is the cultural revolution from the sixties.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. @Tyrion 2
    Having his article at the New York Times, I regret this comment above.

    Yascha Mounk is actually a full-blown civic nationalist who merely feints punches against 'the right' in order to disguise what he is really writing/persuading against.

    His ideal 'inclusive nationalist' society:

    It is a state in which all members have the same rights and opportunities irrespective of the group into which they are born or the culture to which they belong. It is a society in which people feel that they have something important in common because they seek to govern themselves together, pledge to help one another in an hour of need and recognize that these shared commitments are ultimately more consequential than any difference of color or creed. And it is a culture that does not shy away from celebrating the nobility of this collective identity — embracing the nation’s flag not because we claim never to have failed our compatriots in the past but because we aspire to realize a common future fair to all

    His method seems to be to say to 'liberals' that although "you guys hate water, you should really try some H20, it is totally different, I promise, and absolutely nothing at all like that stuff the people you hate drink. Don't worry, you have staked all your self-esteem and reputation on water being terrible and it definitely is, just drink this H20 instead."

    I’m afraid you’re getting him wrong (lest you’re being sarcastic)–to him ‘inclusive nationalism’ is open borders, multicultural and multiethnic, he’s making this very clear in many articles. He’s not trying to fool liberals but all others instead, redefining nationalism lest the dreaded ‘populists’ win with their non-inclusive version. He’s a multiculturalist stooge afraid that the peasants might revolt prematurely and abort the billionaire donor’s revolution at the last moment. Trump’s win and the populist rise in Europe has made them nervous. [insert nasty rant including pitch forks and hand grenades]

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    You and others keep saying this but where's the evidence?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. @AnotherDad

    Nothing about the quote you were responding to says what you think it says. If anything, it implies the opposite.
     
    Agree it's not telling. I read the review of his book Steve linked to, and the piece Mounk had in the Times a week ago. But there isn't any one paragraph you can pull that neatly captures where he's at. There's nothing complicated or insightful about what he says, there's just a lot of blather to get there.

    Basically Mounk is against nationalism--unsurprisingly, he wasn't actually part of the nation he grew up in (Germany). But he realizes that liberals are seeing a counter-reaction to their anti-nationalism and he's worried about it. Mounk diagnoses some of this as essentially that liberals are post-nationalist, but actual people find globalism too empty and unsatisfying--too thin a gruel. So they are losing the battle to nationalists who actually offer something. But Mounk thinks those guys are bad, bad, bad. (And i can pretty solidly determine his intense distaste is to their actual nationalism not some other aspect of "right" politics, because it's quite clear in the case of many of the groups--e.g. the National Front--that they aren't necessarily laisse faire or against the welfare state.)

    So what Mounk urges is a sort of civic nationalism: Rally behind the flag guys! But not because the flag actually represents an actually existing particular people, culture, history, *nation* that you're part of but because ... well ... um ... there's a big state (run by people like ... Mounk!) which will help us all build a glorious, glorious future together--despite our diversity and not actually having anything in common but being policed by the same taxing authority.

    As i said ... he wants nationalism without, you know, actual nations.

    (Note--if that's the source of confusion--when i say "nation" i mean a nation. I don't mean the super-state that controls a piece of territory--leftists are always for the super-state, that doesn't mean they are for nations. No i mean the actual nation--the distinct people of a place with their history and culture.)

    Basically Mounk is against nationalism

    I have read a bunch of his work now and he is explicitly for nationalism. He also gives all sorts of actual arguments for why a reasonably homogenous country is good. Equally, he gives all sorts of solid reasons for why diversity is detrimental.

    He does mouth the shibboleths of received opinion but makes absolutely no effort to convince anyone of them. He seems merely to be trying to convince his readers that he is a ‘good’ person so that they will listen to him on the important stuff. See above.

    He is the salesman (for nationalism) that calls up and emphasises how he hates cold calls and how the other cold callers are so rude….but do you want to buy the stuff he just so happens to have? It’s completely different. It’s inclusive and liberal and not at all like that stuff from Brexit, from the Front National and the AfD. Oh, and you have to accept it instead of post-nationalism, because post-nationalism is a disaster because of structured reasons A through Z.

    Oh, and hey, he can’t be prejudiced. He’s a Jew who grew up in Germany.

    =

    “Hey, I can’t be homophobic, I used to watch lesbian porn as a teen”

    unsurprisingly, he wasn’t actually part of the nation he grew up in (Germany)

    He emphasises this a lot. It is probably mostly false. It is a persuasion technique. See above.

    Now I get why the commenters here don’t get it. They are not the intended audience. Nonetheless, aren’t any bright enough to be able to see the meaning behind Mounk’s words?

    Read More
    • Troll: IHTG
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The New York Times reviewer of his book didn't seem to get it ...

    Maybe the sensible people have to spell things out a little more clearly?

    , @theo the kraut
    > He also gives all sorts of actual arguments for why a reasonably homogenous country is good.

    > Equally, he gives all sorts of solid reasons for why diversity is detrimental.

    Please give linked, listed quotes for both propositions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. @theo the kraut
    I'm afraid you're getting him wrong (lest you're being sarcastic)--to him ‘inclusive nationalism’ is open borders, multicultural and multiethnic, he's making this very clear in many articles. He's not trying to fool liberals but all others instead, redefining nationalism lest the dreaded 'populists' win with their non-inclusive version. He's a multiculturalist stooge afraid that the peasants might revolt prematurely and abort the billionaire donor's revolution at the last moment. Trump's win and the populist rise in Europe has made them nervous. [insert nasty rant including pitch forks and hand grenades]

    You and others keep saying this but where’s the evidence?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. @Tyrion 2

    Basically Mounk is against nationalism
     
    I have read a bunch of his work now and he is explicitly for nationalism. He also gives all sorts of actual arguments for why a reasonably homogenous country is good. Equally, he gives all sorts of solid reasons for why diversity is detrimental.

    He does mouth the shibboleths of received opinion but makes absolutely no effort to convince anyone of them. He seems merely to be trying to convince his readers that he is a 'good' person so that they will listen to him on the important stuff. See above.

    He is the salesman (for nationalism) that calls up and emphasises how he hates cold calls and how the other cold callers are so rude....but do you want to buy the stuff he just so happens to have? It's completely different. It's inclusive and liberal and not at all like that stuff from Brexit, from the Front National and the AfD. Oh, and you have to accept it instead of post-nationalism, because post-nationalism is a disaster because of structured reasons A through Z.

    Oh, and hey, he can't be prejudiced. He's a Jew who grew up in Germany.

    =

    "Hey, I can't be homophobic, I used to watch lesbian porn as a teen"


    unsurprisingly, he wasn’t actually part of the nation he grew up in (Germany)
     
    He emphasises this a lot. It is probably mostly false. It is a persuasion technique. See above.

    Now I get why the commenters here don't get it. They are not the intended audience. Nonetheless, aren't any bright enough to be able to see the meaning behind Mounk's words?

    The New York Times reviewer of his book didn’t seem to get it …

    Maybe the sensible people have to spell things out a little more clearly?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2

    The New York Times reviewer of his book didn’t seem to get it …

    Maybe the sensible people have to spell things out a little more clearly
     

    The pitch is designed so that the buyer doesn't know that they're being sold to. They think they're being told how clever they are and how right they always were about their ideas. Naturally, they won't understand what is happening, even while they're buying what he is selling.

    A less cynical way of expressing the above is that Mounk is merely talking to the best side of his readers' opinions and helping them along to more complete conclusions with some of his complementary thoughts, like a kind teacher.

    If political discourse were between Mounk style inclusive nationalism on the left and American Greatness nationalism on the right, America would have a uniparty again but a uniparty of common sense.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. @Steve Sailer
    The New York Times reviewer of his book didn't seem to get it ...

    Maybe the sensible people have to spell things out a little more clearly?

    The New York Times reviewer of his book didn’t seem to get it …

    Maybe the sensible people have to spell things out a little more clearly

    The pitch is designed so that the buyer doesn’t know that they’re being sold to. They think they’re being told how clever they are and how right they always were about their ideas. Naturally, they won’t understand what is happening, even while they’re buying what he is selling.

    A less cynical way of expressing the above is that Mounk is merely talking to the best side of his readers’ opinions and helping them along to more complete conclusions with some of his complementary thoughts, like a kind teacher.

    If political discourse were between Mounk style inclusive nationalism on the left and American Greatness nationalism on the right, America would have a uniparty again but a uniparty of common sense.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Not this time, Corny. I have a friend who is from South Africa. His parents are Boer farmers. They have neighbors who have been attacked.

    You strike me as an unserious person, someone who never got into a school yard fight. I can only hope that you really are a troll, that you are, in fact, fighting for your people's interest. Otherwise, you are a fool and a wimp, and I can't wait for your kind to be culled from the herd.

    Keep up the good work, Corny. You've taught me a lot. You've taught me that debating with the other side doesn't work. Push back on the ground, that works. Quietly, slowly, but push back. For that, I am very thankful.

    I will never respond to you again.

    “Not this time, Corny. I have a friend who is from South Africa. His parents are Boer farmers. They have neighbors who have been attacked.”

    Which is both tragic and ironic. Tragic, in that these white farmers ought not be subject to violent reprisals for past conduct by their ancestors. Ironic, considering that there are a number of white South Africans, similar to yourself, that are open to armed conflict–they cannot wait to get their gun and start shooting at people. Yet, when their brethren is attacked, they verbally lash out rather than actually engage. It’s more armchair warrior than anything else.

    “You strike me as an unserious person, someone who never got into a school yard fight.”

    On the contrary, I am VERY serious regarding my concerns about my nation, and the direction it is headed. And I got into a fair number of scrapes back in my youth in the glorious 70′s and 80′s.

    “I can only hope that you really are a troll, that you are, in fact, fighting for your people’s interest.”

    Hardly a troll. I respond rhetoric with rhetoric, dialectic with dialectic.

    “Otherwise, you are a fool and a wimp, and I can’t wait for your kind to be culled from the herd.”

    Your statement is other than surprising, as it appears you truly do not appreciate life and the living.

    “You’ve taught me a lot. You’ve taught me that debating with the other side doesn’t work.”

    Exactly how the Coalition of the Fringes generally think and act. Our nation has been and will continue to be based on open dialogue, although in these times it certainly is much more taxing. But normies and Generation Z give me hope.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. @J.Ross
    >to create cacophony in the public sphere.
    Oh so you don't understand what he's doing, and expect the Republicans to win while playing by the establishment's rules, which have recently been amended to specify white exclusion. Maybe Anderson Voodoo will be nice to us if we raise our hands and wait politely to be called on.

    Oh so you don’t understand what he’s doing, and expect the Republicans to win while playing by the establishment’s rules, which have recently been amended to specify white exclusion. Maybe Anderson Voodoo will be nice to us if we raise our hands and wait politely to be called on.

    Yeah, yeah, yeah, this is exactly what’s not working for us right now.

    This is not October 2016 any more, and people don’t feel the need to support Trump for the sake of keeping Hillary out of the White House. Western PA was Ground Zero for the propensity for previously nonpartisan or Democratic-leaning white voters to come out in droves for Trump, and we just lost a special election there (with a candidate who defined himself as supporting Trump btw).

    So let’s cut the crap and the tough-sounding bullshit, and take a look outside to see what’s actually going on out there. And then let’s do what it actually takes to win instead of what sounds good on iSteve.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. @megabar

    Taleb said, you cannot persuade someone that they are wrong, only reality can.
     
    While there is truth in what you're saying, I don't think it's the whole story.

    I think people can resist believing in "reality", as long as they have a narrative that adequately explains what they see. For example, the different mannerisms of blacks is easily explained by environmental arguments. This is even more true because of confirmation bias. That is, there are reserved, intelligent blacks, as well as unruly, stupid whites, and these examples are weighed more heavily in an egalitarian's mind since it confirms their belief.

    I think it possible to get people to re-evaluate their positions, but it must be done obliquely, and allow them to change their own mind over time.

    For example, if I were tasked to convince someone about race realism, I would start with relatively innocuous things. Most people intuitively believe that two geniuses are more likely to have smarter-than-average kids. If you can get them to agree that it's at least partly genetic (many will resist this step), then you've established that IQ is at least partly heritable.

    Next, it's _relatively_ easy to get agreement that blacks are, on average, faster than whites, and that this is a genetic difference. Sprinting records and and NFL defensive backs are reasonably convincing in this matter. This establishes that at least some genetic traits are distributed differently in different populations.

    Those two facts can introduce that seed of doubt that if sufficiently generalized, can cast doubt on the idea of racial interchangeability.

    Now, I don't mean to imply that it's easy to convince someone. It's not.

    I think people can resist believing in “reality”, as long as they have a narrative that adequately explains what they see. For example, the different mannerisms of blacks is easily explained by environmental arguments.

    No, it’s not. No environmental explanation has ever been advanced, nor is one imaginable.

    Perhaps it would be true to say that it can be attributed to “environment”, and people won’t actually think about how stupid such a claim is.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. @AnotherDad

    To me, this is the strongest argument that most pro-immigrant folks honestly believe the popular narrative that people are genetically interchangeable. I don’t believe there are any sinister plots afoot to eliminate whites or Western culture.

    In any discussion I have with pro-immigration folks, they generally will, at some point, argue that America ultimately assimilated the various European peoples, after some unpleasant adjustment period.
     
    Couple points:

    1) This still isn't a good argument for immigration.
    Simple level: This whole line is a "yeah there's all this disruption and conflict, but it's going to work out in the end". The counter here is "uh, let's just not do it--and save ourselves the disruption."

    And as I've pointed out, this immigration forever!, "a nation of immigrants" thing is just fundamentally stupid/nasty/toxic mathematically.

    It means that whomever the current population of a nation is, their progeny's share of the future nation will be continually reduced and reduced. This must either continue--sub-replacement fertility--until the current owners genes are essentially extinguished or stops at some point in the future when the nation just becomes so godawful crowded and unpleasant that no else wants to come. Neither of these options is willing your descendants a pleasant future.

    So it doesn't even take any racial realism to realize what a disaster immigration forever! is. It just takes clear thought.

    2) America ultimately assimilated the various European peoples
    The key word there is "European". The example we have is assimilating European peoples into a particular sort of European nation. (For the record this was basically extending and entrenching the conquest of the land from the natives.)

    But we also have a very clear example of *not* successfully assimilating blacks. Of course this is why so much effort has been spent by leftists/Jews/big-staters demanding--against increasing implausibility as generations elapse since the civil rights revolution--that black dysfunction is categorically the fault of whites. But even with all that it remains the case that we haven't done it. That we don't know how to do it.

    In some sense this is just restating your prescription that we have to break the blank slate. However, the my point is that that break--at the functional, boots-on-the-ground level--is already there. If someone says "we assimilated Italians so ...", it's not necessary to make them an HBD believer. Even if miracle of miracles blacks really are just as innately capable, the fact remains that we as a society haven't been able to successfully integrate them to our Euro-American" norms, culture, economy. It's been intractable and highly unpleasant. Or simply put, we don't have to do an elaborate proof, the assimilation counter-example is staring everyone in the face. One just has to mention it.

    Of course, the reality is most people really aren't "blank slate" believers. Even the people who believe "yeah this assimilation can work", have sort of given American blacks some sort of affirmative action special casing and flat out don't consider them.

    ~

    The key to changing opinions on immigration is to implant the seed of doubt about racial interchangeability. This is extraordinarily difficult to do today, firstly as it is in actuality an unpleasant fact to moral people. For example, the idea took hold even in days past, when political correctness was not around
     
    I think you're retconning the pervasiveness of the racial-interchangeability notion a bit here. Most of the civil rights impetus wasn't real "racial interchangeability" belief, but simply "the right thing to do". People should be given a chance.

    Heck, i think that. But the point is "people who are here--who are Americans--should be given a chance". That's not the same as "let's invite everyone here and deal with their problems."

    I’m going to play devil’s advocate here and argue for immigration as an egalitarian would, but keep in mind I’m firmly anti-immigration from people that won’t do well in modern society.

    1) This still isn’t a good argument for immigration. Simple level: This whole line is a “yeah there’s all this disruption and conflict, but it’s going to work out in the end”. The counter here is “uh, let’s just not do it–and save ourselves the disruption.”

    A temporary discomfort is worth it if there’s true long term gain. Would the US be better if you removed all of its many Germanic immigrants?

    It means that whomever the current population of a nation is, their progeny’s share of the future nation will be continually reduced and reduced.

    First, if the newcomers are interchangeable with you, then their fertility rates will eventually equal yours. That is, the population will eventually stabilize, and no one is extinguished. Furthermore, if the share of genes of your ancestors is ultimately lower than it would have been without immigration, and the new people’s genes are every bit as good, then who really cares?

    2) America ultimately assimilated the various European peoples
    The key word there is “European”

    Well, yeah. But until you can convince them that the different races are in fact different, the distinction between European and African is meaningless. It all comes back to race realism.

    When you point out that blacks have not assimilated, you have not attacked their position. They believe that blacks lag only because of racism and oppression. If anything, they will argue that it’s just people like you who cause the problem. That we know _how_ to do it, but there are too many racists.

    I think you’re retconning the pervasiveness of the racial-interchangeability notion

    I’m no historian, so perhaps you’re right. But my understanding is that even then, no one had any idea that the US demographics would change so dramatically. In order to welcome a minority white nation, which we obviously face now, I think you have to be a racial egalitarian.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman

    First, if the newcomers are interchangeable with you, then their fertility rates will eventually equal yours. That is, the population will eventually stabilize, and no one is extinguished. Furthermore, if the share of genes of your ancestors is ultimately lower than it would have been without immigration, and the new people’s genes are every bit as good, then who really cares?
     
    The people who are replaced!

    "Equally as good" does not mean "the same". Your son may be equally as good as mine, but my son is more important, and everyone feels the same way about their children. No one really thinks people are fungible.

    , @ben tillman

    I’m no historian, so perhaps you’re right. But my understanding is that even then, no one had any idea that the US demographics would change so dramatically.
     
    The demographic change that resulted was the purpose of the law. Read MacDonald's analysis.
    , @ben tillman

    Well, yeah. But until you can convince them that the different races are in fact different, the distinction between European and African is meaningless. It all comes back to race realism.

    When you point out that blacks have not assimilated, you have not attacked their position. They believe that blacks lag only because of racism and oppression.
     
    If the races aren't different, then racism and racist oppression are impossible. So, no, the view is incoherent and devoid of explicatory power.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. @megabar
    To me, this is the strongest argument that most pro-immigrant folks honestly believe the popular narrative that people are genetically interchangeable. I don't believe there are any sinister plots afoot to eliminate whites or Western culture.

    In any discussion I have with pro-immigration folks, they generally will, at some point, argue that America ultimately assimilated the various European peoples, after some unpleasant adjustment period.

    That argument is in fact a good one given the assumption that all races are the same, and is also why mainstream conservatives _do_ generally look illogical. They try to argue that immigration is bad even though the people are, at their core, fully compatible with the West.

    The key to changing opinions on immigration is to implant the seed of doubt about racial interchangeability. This is extraordinarily difficult to do today, firstly as it is in actuality an unpleasant fact to moral people. For example, the idea took hold even in days past, when political correctness was not around. Compounding that, in today's world, the idea is considered the most repugnant fact possible, and there is a lot of machinery in place to offer alternative explanations for the disparity we see in the world.

    To me, this is the strongest argument that most pro-immigrant folks honestly believe the popular narrative that people are genetically interchangeable. I don’t believe there are any sinister plots afoot to eliminate whites or Western culture.

    If not, why would the governments of all Western countries be discriminating against the native whites and in favor of foreign non-whites. This is self-evidently an effort to eliminate whites, and it cannot have happened coincidentally.

    Read More
    • Replies: @megabar

    There is no explanation other than an effort to eliminate whites.
     
    Sure there is. They (most progressives) honestly believe that there are no meaningful genetic differences between the races. Everything follows from that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. @Svigor

    To me, this is the strongest argument that most pro-immigrant folks honestly believe the popular narrative that people are genetically interchangeable. I don’t believe there are any sinister plots afoot to eliminate whites or Western culture.
     
    Useful idiots don't obviate the possibility of sinister plotters. That said, I think there's too much self-deception in Jewish culture to call it "sinister." Supremacist and genocidally negligent, sure.

    That argument is in fact a good one given the assumption that all races are the same, and is also why mainstream conservatives _do_ generally look illogical. They try to argue that immigration is bad even though the people are, at their core, fully compatible with the West.

    The key to changing opinions on immigration is to implant the seed of doubt about racial interchangeability. This is extraordinarily difficult to do today, firstly as it is in actuality an unpleasant fact to moral people. For example, the idea took hold even in days past, when political correctness was not around. Compounding that, in today’s world, the idea is considered the most repugnant fact possible, and there is a lot of machinery in place to offer alternative explanations for the disparity we see in the world.
     
    I skip all that bullshit and go right for the throat: Israel's ethnonationalist, Jews are smart, ergo their way's better.

    Israel and the Zionists and their lock on the US establishment put the lie to all of the left's bullshit.

    Let them do all the extraordinarily difficult work clawing back from that.

    Useful idiots don’t obviate the possibility of sinister plotters

    That’s true — that’s why I said “most people”. If you want to stop mass immigration, you’ll need to convince “most people” (i.e. the voters) that there are in fact differences between the races, and if they want to continue to live in a place like the US, we need to change some things.

    I skip all that bullshit and go right for the throat

    This approach is generally doomed to fail. In fact, to change someone’s mind on a strongly held position, you can not attack it. You will only strengthen their position, and cause them to further dislike your view.

    If I were an egalitarian, I would say your argument is meaningless — it only proves that Israel is making the wrong choice in excluding immigrants that would help it grow.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. @ben tillman

    To me, this is the strongest argument that most pro-immigrant folks honestly believe the popular narrative that people are genetically interchangeable. I don’t believe there are any sinister plots afoot to eliminate whites or Western culture.
     
    If not, why would the governments of all Western countries be discriminating against the native whites and in favor of foreign non-whites. This is self-evidently an effort to eliminate whites, and it cannot have happened coincidentally.

    There is no explanation other than an effort to eliminate whites.

    Sure there is. They (most progressives) honestly believe that there are no meaningful genetic differences between the races. Everything follows from that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman

    Sure there is. They (most progressives) honestly believe that there are no meaningful genetic differences between the races. Everything follows from that.
     
    No, it doesn't.

    Immigration doesn't follow from that. Immigration is pointless if all races are the same.

    Anti-self discrimination doesn't follow from that. Equal treatment would conceivably follow from that, but not discrimination against the nation in favor of foreigners.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. Btw, here is a piece I saw linked from Kaus a few weeks ago:

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-trump-isnt-taking-democrats-offer-for-a-wall/

    I think the author is right, and I give credit to Trump here. And frankly, Trump surprised me in a good way. I was worried that the Pewitt/Coulter types were going to be baying for a wall and itching to accuse The Donald of cucking/selling out on immigration.

    But Trump shrewdly imo, didn’t go for it. He also stood by as the Establishment GOP got the big tax cut through, which ought to keep them onside. He also is presiding over a growing economy, with low unemployment, even signs that wage growth could be starting up again. He’s got all this, and it’s still not enough. He couldn’t hold 43% approval for more than a week, and he’s back down at 41% again.

    We’re at a place where we need strategic improvements, not just tactical ones. And the biggest bang for the buck is shitcanning the President’s twitter.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  201. @J.Ross
    http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/164113125

    Minor happening thread with good photos

    An African in Spain had a fatal heart attack while running away from police. He had been an unlicensed street vendor. His neighborhood has decided that he was murdered by racist cops and is taking it with the maturity we have come to expect from them.

    The Spanish police is perfectly able to put down these things with exemplary brutality. They are very harsh against various regional nationalists so I’d expect them to handle the Africans the same way.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. @International Jew
    And on that note, I'd like to recognize the late great Antonin Scalia.
    https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/scalia-family.jpg

    I met some of the Scalias in the 1980s when I believe this photo was taken. Besides that there were a lot of them, it was striking how fair so many of them were given their Dad’s Sicilian heritage. Most of them could have passed for Holsteiners.

    Read More
    • Replies: @International Jew
    Well, the Vikings got to Sicily back around 1000... Anyway, most of the older kids have his big jaw.

    It's nice to see a guy who's obviously a huge winner in our system, but who nonetheless doesn't dedicate his life to ruining it for everyone else.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. The fundamental problem today is that the anti-populists have become such extremist radicals on immigration policy.

    Many a true word is said in jest….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  204. @megabar
    I'm going to play devil's advocate here and argue for immigration as an egalitarian would, but keep in mind I'm firmly anti-immigration from people that won't do well in modern society.

    1) This still isn’t a good argument for immigration. Simple level: This whole line is a “yeah there’s all this disruption and conflict, but it’s going to work out in the end”. The counter here is “uh, let’s just not do it–and save ourselves the disruption.”
     
    A temporary discomfort is worth it if there's true long term gain. Would the US be better if you removed all of its many Germanic immigrants?

    It means that whomever the current population of a nation is, their progeny’s share of the future nation will be continually reduced and reduced.
     
    First, if the newcomers are interchangeable with you, then their fertility rates will eventually equal yours. That is, the population will eventually stabilize, and no one is extinguished. Furthermore, if the share of genes of your ancestors is ultimately lower than it would have been without immigration, and the new people's genes are every bit as good, then who really cares?

    2) America ultimately assimilated the various European peoples
    The key word there is “European”
     
    Well, yeah. But until you can convince them that the different races are in fact different, the distinction between European and African is meaningless. It all comes back to race realism.

    When you point out that blacks have not assimilated, you have not attacked their position. They believe that blacks lag only because of racism and oppression. If anything, they will argue that it's just people like you who cause the problem. That we know _how_ to do it, but there are too many racists.

    I think you’re retconning the pervasiveness of the racial-interchangeability notion
     
    I'm no historian, so perhaps you're right. But my understanding is that even then, no one had any idea that the US demographics would change so dramatically. In order to welcome a minority white nation, which we obviously face now, I think you have to be a racial egalitarian.

    First, if the newcomers are interchangeable with you, then their fertility rates will eventually equal yours. That is, the population will eventually stabilize, and no one is extinguished. Furthermore, if the share of genes of your ancestors is ultimately lower than it would have been without immigration, and the new people’s genes are every bit as good, then who really cares?

    The people who are replaced!

    “Equally as good” does not mean “the same”. Your son may be equally as good as mine, but my son is more important, and everyone feels the same way about their children. No one really thinks people are fungible.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. @megabar

    There is no explanation other than an effort to eliminate whites.
     
    Sure there is. They (most progressives) honestly believe that there are no meaningful genetic differences between the races. Everything follows from that.

    Sure there is. They (most progressives) honestly believe that there are no meaningful genetic differences between the races. Everything follows from that.

    No, it doesn’t.

    Immigration doesn’t follow from that. Immigration is pointless if all races are the same.

    Anti-self discrimination doesn’t follow from that. Equal treatment would conceivably follow from that, but not discrimination against the nation in favor of foreigners.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. @megabar
    I'm going to play devil's advocate here and argue for immigration as an egalitarian would, but keep in mind I'm firmly anti-immigration from people that won't do well in modern society.

    1) This still isn’t a good argument for immigration. Simple level: This whole line is a “yeah there’s all this disruption and conflict, but it’s going to work out in the end”. The counter here is “uh, let’s just not do it–and save ourselves the disruption.”
     
    A temporary discomfort is worth it if there's true long term gain. Would the US be better if you removed all of its many Germanic immigrants?

    It means that whomever the current population of a nation is, their progeny’s share of the future nation will be continually reduced and reduced.
     
    First, if the newcomers are interchangeable with you, then their fertility rates will eventually equal yours. That is, the population will eventually stabilize, and no one is extinguished. Furthermore, if the share of genes of your ancestors is ultimately lower than it would have been without immigration, and the new people's genes are every bit as good, then who really cares?

    2) America ultimately assimilated the various European peoples
    The key word there is “European”
     
    Well, yeah. But until you can convince them that the different races are in fact different, the distinction between European and African is meaningless. It all comes back to race realism.

    When you point out that blacks have not assimilated, you have not attacked their position. They believe that blacks lag only because of racism and oppression. If anything, they will argue that it's just people like you who cause the problem. That we know _how_ to do it, but there are too many racists.

    I think you’re retconning the pervasiveness of the racial-interchangeability notion
     
    I'm no historian, so perhaps you're right. But my understanding is that even then, no one had any idea that the US demographics would change so dramatically. In order to welcome a minority white nation, which we obviously face now, I think you have to be a racial egalitarian.

    I’m no historian, so perhaps you’re right. But my understanding is that even then, no one had any idea that the US demographics would change so dramatically.

    The demographic change that resulted was the purpose of the law. Read MacDonald’s analysis.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. @megabar
    I'm going to play devil's advocate here and argue for immigration as an egalitarian would, but keep in mind I'm firmly anti-immigration from people that won't do well in modern society.

    1) This still isn’t a good argument for immigration. Simple level: This whole line is a “yeah there’s all this disruption and conflict, but it’s going to work out in the end”. The counter here is “uh, let’s just not do it–and save ourselves the disruption.”
     
    A temporary discomfort is worth it if there's true long term gain. Would the US be better if you removed all of its many Germanic immigrants?

    It means that whomever the current population of a nation is, their progeny’s share of the future nation will be continually reduced and reduced.
     
    First, if the newcomers are interchangeable with you, then their fertility rates will eventually equal yours. That is, the population will eventually stabilize, and no one is extinguished. Furthermore, if the share of genes of your ancestors is ultimately lower than it would have been without immigration, and the new people's genes are every bit as good, then who really cares?

    2) America ultimately assimilated the various European peoples
    The key word there is “European”
     
    Well, yeah. But until you can convince them that the different races are in fact different, the distinction between European and African is meaningless. It all comes back to race realism.

    When you point out that blacks have not assimilated, you have not attacked their position. They believe that blacks lag only because of racism and oppression. If anything, they will argue that it's just people like you who cause the problem. That we know _how_ to do it, but there are too many racists.

    I think you’re retconning the pervasiveness of the racial-interchangeability notion
     
    I'm no historian, so perhaps you're right. But my understanding is that even then, no one had any idea that the US demographics would change so dramatically. In order to welcome a minority white nation, which we obviously face now, I think you have to be a racial egalitarian.

    Well, yeah. But until you can convince them that the different races are in fact different, the distinction between European and African is meaningless. It all comes back to race realism.

    When you point out that blacks have not assimilated, you have not attacked their position. They believe that blacks lag only because of racism and oppression.

    If the races aren’t different, then racism and racist oppression are impossible. So, no, the view is incoherent and devoid of explicatory power.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. @Flip
    I used to think we were headed to Brazil 2.0, but I am starting to think that the Ottoman Empire might be a better template.

    I am starting to think that the Ottoman Empire might be a better template.

    The Ottoman Empire is the Israeli template–the millet system. Everyone carries their own national ID identifying their racial/ethnic/religious/national group. Every group has its own corresponding family law and religious court system. Every group has its own schools. And “Israeli” is not a “nationality”. By Israeli law there is no “Israeli” nationality. There is Israeli citizenship, but no Israeli nationality.

    Perhaps this is what Mr. Monck wants for America. An Arab Klal, a Jewish Klal, a Black Klal, a Catholic Klal, a Protestant Klal. Perhaps with alternating Presidencies to maintain social ordera la Lebanon: one term a Muslim President, the next term a Christian President, then a Jewish President, then a black President.

    As Lebanon demonstrates, this arrangement only postpones the inevitable. Sooner or later, either due to immigration, refugees or fast breeding, one of the groups vastly increases its numbers and the whole rickety scaffolding of the balanced multi-ethnic social order collapses.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. @megabar
    To me, this is the strongest argument that most pro-immigrant folks honestly believe the popular narrative that people are genetically interchangeable. I don't believe there are any sinister plots afoot to eliminate whites or Western culture.

    In any discussion I have with pro-immigration folks, they generally will, at some point, argue that America ultimately assimilated the various European peoples, after some unpleasant adjustment period.

    That argument is in fact a good one given the assumption that all races are the same, and is also why mainstream conservatives _do_ generally look illogical. They try to argue that immigration is bad even though the people are, at their core, fully compatible with the West.

    The key to changing opinions on immigration is to implant the seed of doubt about racial interchangeability. This is extraordinarily difficult to do today, firstly as it is in actuality an unpleasant fact to moral people. For example, the idea took hold even in days past, when political correctness was not around. Compounding that, in today's world, the idea is considered the most repugnant fact possible, and there is a lot of machinery in place to offer alternative explanations for the disparity we see in the world.

    I don’t believe there are any sinister plots afoot to eliminate whites or Western culture.

    Depends what you mean by western culture. The game plan is to have one single global culture, which will of course be American culture. Is modern American culture part of the western cultural tradition? I think that’s debatable.

    The intention is that all non-American culture will be suppressed. It will be drowned in a tidal wave of American “culture.”

    In the future everyone will see Black Panther, and they will all enjoy it. They’ll have to, since there won’t be any choice. Everyone will listen to Beyonce.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    Too bad ye Brits don’t have a Second Amendment to back up ‘free speech.’

    Too bad ye Brits don’t have a Second Amendment to back up ‘free speech.’

    The Brits don’t have free speech to begin with. But then in practice neither do Americans. And the Second Amendment hasn’t saved free speech in America.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  211. @ben tillman

    The rise of the internet and immigration flows from literally every corner of the Earth into the West along with laws like asylum and family reunification has simply allowed for the real possibility to kill off the lower classes once and for all.
     
    It's every bit as deadly for the middle and upper classes as well.

    has simply allowed for the real possibility to kill off the lower classes once and for all.

    It’s every bit as deadly for the middle and upper classes as well.

    It doesn’t affect the upper classes at all. They’re doing better than ever before.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman
    Be careful not to confuse the present with the future. The White upper classes are not equipped to compete with Jews, and they will disappear.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  212. @AnotherDad

    To me, this is the strongest argument that most pro-immigrant folks honestly believe the popular narrative that people are genetically interchangeable. I don’t believe there are any sinister plots afoot to eliminate whites or Western culture.

    In any discussion I have with pro-immigration folks, they generally will, at some point, argue that America ultimately assimilated the various European peoples, after some unpleasant adjustment period.
     
    Couple points:

    1) This still isn't a good argument for immigration.
    Simple level: This whole line is a "yeah there's all this disruption and conflict, but it's going to work out in the end". The counter here is "uh, let's just not do it--and save ourselves the disruption."

    And as I've pointed out, this immigration forever!, "a nation of immigrants" thing is just fundamentally stupid/nasty/toxic mathematically.

    It means that whomever the current population of a nation is, their progeny's share of the future nation will be continually reduced and reduced. This must either continue--sub-replacement fertility--until the current owners genes are essentially extinguished or stops at some point in the future when the nation just becomes so godawful crowded and unpleasant that no else wants to come. Neither of these options is willing your descendants a pleasant future.

    So it doesn't even take any racial realism to realize what a disaster immigration forever! is. It just takes clear thought.

    2) America ultimately assimilated the various European peoples
    The key word there is "European". The example we have is assimilating European peoples into a particular sort of European nation. (For the record this was basically extending and entrenching the conquest of the land from the natives.)

    But we also have a very clear example of *not* successfully assimilating blacks. Of course this is why so much effort has been spent by leftists/Jews/big-staters demanding--against increasing implausibility as generations elapse since the civil rights revolution--that black dysfunction is categorically the fault of whites. But even with all that it remains the case that we haven't done it. That we don't know how to do it.

    In some sense this is just restating your prescription that we have to break the blank slate. However, the my point is that that break--at the functional, boots-on-the-ground level--is already there. If someone says "we assimilated Italians so ...", it's not necessary to make them an HBD believer. Even if miracle of miracles blacks really are just as innately capable, the fact remains that we as a society haven't been able to successfully integrate them to our Euro-American" norms, culture, economy. It's been intractable and highly unpleasant. Or simply put, we don't have to do an elaborate proof, the assimilation counter-example is staring everyone in the face. One just has to mention it.

    Of course, the reality is most people really aren't "blank slate" believers. Even the people who believe "yeah this assimilation can work", have sort of given American blacks some sort of affirmative action special casing and flat out don't consider them.

    ~

    The key to changing opinions on immigration is to implant the seed of doubt about racial interchangeability. This is extraordinarily difficult to do today, firstly as it is in actuality an unpleasant fact to moral people. For example, the idea took hold even in days past, when political correctness was not around
     
    I think you're retconning the pervasiveness of the racial-interchangeability notion a bit here. Most of the civil rights impetus wasn't real "racial interchangeability" belief, but simply "the right thing to do". People should be given a chance.

    Heck, i think that. But the point is "people who are here--who are Americans--should be given a chance". That's not the same as "let's invite everyone here and deal with their problems."

    “The key word there is “European”. The example we have is assimilating European peoples into a particular sort of European nation.”

    You conveniently forget that the nativists of the late 1800′s believed that certain groups of people, in particular Eastern and Southern Europeans, were other than desirable and thus lacked the “proper traits” to assimilate. Besides, the United States is a mutt nation–it contains a wide range of races and ethnic groups. It was founded by the English, with other Europeans adding their contributions along the way. But there had remained this English vs. the non-English mentality. Yes, they were Europeans, and they were united in a sense against non-whites, but when it came down to assimilating, the strong ethnic beliefs remained–the English did not want to mix with the non-English.

    “Even if miracle of miracles blacks really are just as innately capable, the fact remains that we as a society haven’t been able to successfully integrate them to our Euro-American” norms, culture, economy.”

    Actually, it is American norms, culture, and economy. Drop the Euro.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. @dfordoom


    has simply allowed for the real possibility to kill off the lower classes once and for all.
     
    It’s every bit as deadly for the middle and upper classes as well.
     
    It doesn't affect the upper classes at all. They're doing better than ever before.

    Be careful not to confuse the present with the future. The White upper classes are not equipped to compete with Jews, and they will disappear.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  214. Be careful not to confuse the present with the future. The White upper classes are not equipped to compete with Jews, and they will disappear.

    I very much doubt it. The upper classes, the elites, are all very much alike. Whether Jewish or Gentile they have zero morality and they are all utterly ruthless. They have a very strong class identity and that class identity is what matters to them. And the white upper classes hate middle and lower class whites every bit as much as the Jewish upper classes do.

    The white upper classes will do just fine. They understand very clearly how to protect their own interests.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman

    I very much doubt it. The upper classes, the elites, are all very much alike. Whether Jewish or Gentile they have zero morality and they are all utterly ruthless. They have a very strong class identity and that class identity is what matters to them. And the white upper classes hate middle and lower class whites every bit as much as the Jewish upper classes do.

    The white upper classes will do just fine. They understand very clearly how to protect their own interests.
     
    You could not be more wrong about everything. The white upper classes have no "hate" whatsoever for lower class whites.

    None.

    And they have no ability to compete with Jews. They are disadvantaged -- BY LAW -- in their competition with Jews. That fact alone tells you that they can't compete.
    , @ben tillman

    I very much doubt it. The upper classes, the elites, are all very much alike. Whether Jewish or Gentile they have zero morality and they are all utterly ruthless. They have a very strong class identity and that class identity is what matters to them. And the white upper classes hate middle and lower class whites every bit as much as the Jewish upper classes do.
     
    Class is bullshit.

    If they're white they're white, and their own "class rank" is irrelevant to their ability to compete as individuals against a group.

    The last century has been a disaster for the white upper class.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  215. @Almost Missouri
    I met some of the Scalias in the 1980s when I believe this photo was taken. Besides that there were a lot of them, it was striking how fair so many of them were given their Dad's Sicilian heritage. Most of them could have passed for Holsteiners.

    Well, the Vikings got to Sicily back around 1000… Anyway, most of the older kids have his big jaw.

    It’s nice to see a guy who’s obviously a huge winner in our system, but who nonetheless doesn’t dedicate his life to ruining it for everyone else.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    And as I recall, the Visigoths got in there before them.

    Agree about Scalia being a huge winner. Unfortunately, so do the leftists, and they have been plotting ever since in how to prevent that ever happening again.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  216. @International Jew
    Well, the Vikings got to Sicily back around 1000... Anyway, most of the older kids have his big jaw.

    It's nice to see a guy who's obviously a huge winner in our system, but who nonetheless doesn't dedicate his life to ruining it for everyone else.

    And as I recall, the Visigoths got in there before them.

    Agree about Scalia being a huge winner. Unfortunately, so do the leftists, and they have been plotting ever since in how to prevent that ever happening again.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  217. @tanabear
    Democracy is too important to be left to the people.

    However, the modern Left defines democracy as a xenocracy; rule by and for the benefit of foreigners.

    Actually, American democracy is too important to be left to the Coalition of the Fringes, aka the Alt Right and SJW’s. Both tout their preferred elites, whether it be Race Realists or the Antifa.

    The future of American democracy is left to citizens like Normies and Generation Z.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  218. @Tyrion 2

    Basically Mounk is against nationalism
     
    I have read a bunch of his work now and he is explicitly for nationalism. He also gives all sorts of actual arguments for why a reasonably homogenous country is good. Equally, he gives all sorts of solid reasons for why diversity is detrimental.

    He does mouth the shibboleths of received opinion but makes absolutely no effort to convince anyone of them. He seems merely to be trying to convince his readers that he is a 'good' person so that they will listen to him on the important stuff. See above.

    He is the salesman (for nationalism) that calls up and emphasises how he hates cold calls and how the other cold callers are so rude....but do you want to buy the stuff he just so happens to have? It's completely different. It's inclusive and liberal and not at all like that stuff from Brexit, from the Front National and the AfD. Oh, and you have to accept it instead of post-nationalism, because post-nationalism is a disaster because of structured reasons A through Z.

    Oh, and hey, he can't be prejudiced. He's a Jew who grew up in Germany.

    =

    "Hey, I can't be homophobic, I used to watch lesbian porn as a teen"


    unsurprisingly, he wasn’t actually part of the nation he grew up in (Germany)
     
    He emphasises this a lot. It is probably mostly false. It is a persuasion technique. See above.

    Now I get why the commenters here don't get it. They are not the intended audience. Nonetheless, aren't any bright enough to be able to see the meaning behind Mounk's words?

    > He also gives all sorts of actual arguments for why a reasonably homogenous country is good.

    > Equally, he gives all sorts of solid reasons for why diversity is detrimental.

    Please give linked, listed quotes for both propositions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    You could just read any of his articles...

    The first I found was this:

    https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/03/03/opinion/sunday/liberals-reclaim-nationalism.html

    Now if you can read past the sales patter in the opening 8 paragraphs of nonsense you hit these quotes:

    One common reaction to the dangerous excesses of nationalism has been to forgo the need for any form of collective identity, exhorting people to transcend tribal allegiances completely. But for better or probably worse, it’s easier to be moved by the suffering of people with whom we have some form of kinship.

    And

    In countries like Germany and the United States, advocacy for the victims of prejudice has increasingly bled into a belief that the dark chapters of those countries’ history make any form of nationalism deeply suspect. Instead of exhorting their fellow citizens to live up to their nations’ highest ideals, many activists seem content with denouncing past and present injustices.

    The point being that Mounk is arguing with the NYT audience to be nationalistic while reassuring them that being so does not make them Jim Crow Nazi Hillbilly Trumps.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments